Home Sports Talk
Options

Was Steve Young A LOT better then Troy Aikmann

4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex

Was Steve Young A LOT better then Troy Aikmann

Sign in to vote!
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.

Comments

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,482 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    Yes

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    I'll take Young, he could get you with his arm and his legs.

  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    yes, like 2 standard deviations better

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,115 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    Was Hank Aaron a lot better than Hank Bauer? And yes, I think this a perfect analogy.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,131 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    when Steve Young's name is mentioned, this is the play i think about

    envision Troy Aikman taking a stab at this and try not to wee wee from laughter

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzZYEG7foo8

  • Options
    thisistheshowthisistheshow Posts: 9,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To point out how good Young was, there is no need to put down Aikman.

    In fact, what if the question was just is Troy Aikman underrated? Would anyone say yes? If not, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

    Full disclosure, I was not of the opinion that he was until around 2010. By then I'd been in Dallas/Fort Worth for four years and I'd heard it all...enough to convince me that he is. Lol.

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,115 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    I think Troy Aikman is the most overrated football player in NFL history. He, and Emmitt Smith to a lesser degree, simply had the good fortune to play behind a GOAT-caliber offensive line. One must start from the assumption that the QB on a great team must be great in order to reach the conclusion that Troy Aikman, who played QB on a great team, was himself great. Concluding what one has initially assumed doesn't demonstrate anything at all, but it is - BY FAR - the leading argument for the greatness of most QBs.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    SDSportsFanSDSportsFan Posts: 5,088 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:
    I think Troy Aikman is the most overrated football player in NFL history. He, and Emmitt Smith to a lesser degree, simply had the good fortune to play behind a GOAT-caliber offensive line. One must start from the assumption that the QB on a great team must be great in order to reach the conclusion that Troy Aikman, who played QB on a great team, was himself great. Concluding what one has initially assumed doesn't demonstrate anything at all, but it is - BY FAR - the leading argument for the greatness of most QBs.

    Joe Willie Namath

    Steve

  • Options
    SDSportsFanSDSportsFan Posts: 5,088 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2023 4:53PM

    Steve Young SUCKS!!!!!

    *Only because of his play in the 1995 Super Bowl.

    I fart in his general direction!!!!!

    Steve

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,115 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @SDSportsFan said:

    Joe Willie Namath

    You could be right, but my sense is that a lot of people do realize that Joe Namath wasn't a great QB, just that he's an iconic, important figure in NFL history. But I agree that the people who really do believe that Namath was a great QB are overrating him more than the "Aikman was great" people are overrating Aikman.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Was Young better than Roger Staubach? I think would be a more interesting poll.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited September 4, 2023 3:01AM

    @Tabe said:
    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

    Aikmann averaged 3 yards per rush.
    Bradshaw 5 per rush.
    Bradshaw moved those chains!

    Bradshaw 1st team 1970’s all decade team.
    Aikmann not even close.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,210 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @SDSportsFan said:

    Joe Willie Namath

    You could be right, but my sense is that a lot of people do realize that Joe Namath wasn't a great QB, just that he's an iconic, important figure in NFL history. But I agree that the people who really do believe that Namath was a great QB are overrating him more than the "Aikman was great" people are overrating Aikman.

    Give Namath Bradshaw's legs and he would possibly be the GOAT.

    Broadway Joe did an awful lot coming into the league with bad knees and defenses allowed to do anything to the quarterback. The Jets ownership also let the team fall completely apart.

    You put Namath behind that Cowboy's O line and it would have been amazing.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:
    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

    Aikmann averaged 3 yards per rush.
    Bradshaw 5 per rush.
    Bradshaw moved those chains!

    Bradshaw 1st team 1970’s all decade team.
    Aikmann not even close.

    Both guys threw a ton of picks and won a ton of games because the guys around them were a lot better. Hence the analogy.

  • Options
    MartinMartin Posts: 834 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    Well guys. After looking at this poll data it looks like Dimeman is not back with an alt. 😀
    Martin

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2023 8:14AM

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:
    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

    Aikmann averaged 3 yards per rush.
    Bradshaw 5 per rush.
    Bradshaw moved those chains!

    Bradshaw 1st team 1970’s all decade team.
    Aikmann not even close.

    Both guys threw a ton of picks and won a ton of games because the guys around them were a lot better. Hence the analogy.

    1st part true.
    2nd part incorrect.

    Bradshaw was the ONLY Steeler to win league MVP from 1970-85.

    Even Alan Page D Minnesota won league MVP but no Steelers D did.

    Terry won Super Bowl MVP twice and should have had 3. He blew away Staubach in the first Super Bowl stats and led both teams in rushing yards per carry, but Swann got MVP.

    Terry was the engine that drove that bus. Knoll was frustrated with throwing into double coverage but Terry was too confident at times.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2023 8:29AM

    Brett Favre who won league MVP 3 years in a row threw a ton of picks too. Both very talented and both very overconfident.

    Terry was a great runner, unlike Favre and Troy.

    RB’s Campbell and Payton won league MVP in the 70’s. Franco never did.
    Bradshaw was the only Steeler.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:
    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

    Aikmann averaged 3 yards per rush.
    Bradshaw 5 per rush.
    Bradshaw moved those chains!

    Bradshaw 1st team 1970’s all decade team.
    Aikmann not even close.

    Both guys threw a ton of picks and won a ton of games because the guys around them were a lot better. Hence the analogy.

    1st part true.
    2nd part incorrect.

    Bradshaw was the ONLY Steeler to win league MVP from 1970-85.

    Even Alan Page D Minnesota won league MVP but no Steelers D did.

    Terry won Super Bowl MVP twice and should have had 3. He blew away Staubach in the first Super Bowl stats and led both teams in rushing yards per carry, but Swann got MVP.

    Terry was the engine that drove that bus. Knoll was frustrated with throwing into double coverage but Terry was too confident at times.

    And yet... Terry's backups had better winning percentages than him.

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,115 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @Tabe said:

    And yet... Terry's backups had better winning percentages than him.

    Careful, don't diss a legend or @4for4 will ignore you and you, too, will cry.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2023 11:25PM

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:
    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

    Aikmann averaged 3 yards per rush.
    Bradshaw 5 per rush.
    Bradshaw moved those chains!

    Bradshaw 1st team 1970’s all decade team.
    Aikmann not even close.

    Both guys threw a ton of picks and won a ton of games because the guys around them were a lot better. Hence the analogy.

    1st part true.
    2nd part incorrect.

    Bradshaw was the ONLY Steeler to win league MVP from 1970-85.

    Even Alan Page D Minnesota won league MVP but no Steelers D did.

    Terry won Super Bowl MVP twice and should have had 3. He blew away Staubach in the first Super Bowl stats and led both teams in rushing yards per carry, but Swann got MVP.

    Terry was the engine that drove that bus. Knoll was frustrated with throwing into double coverage but Terry was too confident at times.

    And yet... Terry's backups had better winning percentages than him.

    Based on what? 6 games?

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @dallasactuary said:
    Based on what? 6 games?

    Since the focus has been on "All-Decade Team" Bradshaw, we look at the 1970s. Records listed only for years in which both backups and Terry played:

    1970: Terry: 3-5, backups: 2-4
    1971: Terry: 5-8, backups: 1-0
    1973: Terry: 8-1, backups: 2-3
    1974: Terry: 5-2, backups: 5-1-1
    1976: Terry: 4-4, backups: 6-0

    Terry: 25-20 - .556
    Backups: 16-8-1 - .660

    Yes, this comparison does flip in the 1980s:

    Terry: 18-12 - .600
    Backups: 9-9 - .500

    But overall, again counting only years where Terry & the backups played:
    Terry: 43-32 - .573
    Backups: 25-17-1 - .593

    Please do not draw the conclusion that I am stating, or even implying, that Terry's backups were better than him. They weren't. Just that, during years when both played (thus having the same teammates), Terry's backups had better records than him.

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Add playoff games and Bradshaw has a better percentage. But .593 vs .573 is a very thin margin. And that's only because the backups played fewer games.

    Bradshaw's winning percentage during the years he started in every game, was an incredible .771

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited September 7, 2023 3:48AM

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    @Tabe said:
    I've got Young as the #2 QB ever so, yeah, a LOT better than Terry Bradshaw 2.0.

    Aikmann averaged 3 yards per rush.
    Bradshaw 5 per rush.
    Bradshaw moved those chains!

    Bradshaw 1st team 1970’s all decade team.
    Aikmann not even close.

    Both guys threw a ton of picks and won a ton of games because the guys around them were a lot better. Hence the analogy.

    1st part true.
    2nd part incorrect.

    Bradshaw was the ONLY Steeler to win league MVP from 1970-85.

    Even Alan Page D Minnesota won league MVP but no Steelers D did.

    Terry won Super Bowl MVP twice and should have had 3. He blew away Staubach in the first Super Bowl stats and led both teams in rushing yards per carry, but Swann got MVP.

    Terry was the engine that drove that bus. Knoll was frustrated with throwing into double coverage but Terry was too confident at times.

    And yet... Terry's backups had better winning percentages than him.

    OMG.
    You’re actually serious with all due respect ?

    Need I mention Roger Staubach’s back up Clint Langley and Danny White had a better record then him in 1975 and 1978 ?

    If you find that humorous would you like me to give you plenty more examples?

    1989 league MVP Joe Montana 11-2.
    His backup was 3-0.

    1992 Warren Moon was 6-4.
    Backup Cody Carlson was 4-2.

    How many more would you like?

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited September 7, 2023 4:03AM

    Tabe- You have a hockey icon.

    Want me to list all the NHL backup goalies who had better season AND playoff records then the starters ?

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited September 7, 2023 4:39AM

    @Tabe said:

    @dallasactuary said:
    Based on what? 6 games?

    Since the focus has been on "All-Decade Team" Bradshaw, we look at the 1970s. Records listed only for years in which both backups and Terry played:

    1970: Terry: 3-5, backups: 2-4
    1971: Terry: 5-8, backups: 1-0
    1973: Terry: 8-1, backups: 2-3
    1974: Terry: 5-2, backups: 5-1-1
    1976: Terry: 4-4, backups: 6-0

    Terry: 25-20 - .556
    Backups: 16-8-1 - .660

    Yes, this comparison does flip in the 1980s:

    Terry: 18-12 - .600
    Backups: 9-9 - .500

    But overall, again counting only years where Terry & the backups played:
    Terry: 43-32 - .573
    Backups: 25-17-1 - .593

    Please do not draw the conclusion that I am stating, or even implying, that Terry's backups were better than him. They weren't. Just that, during years when both played (thus having the same teammates), Terry's backups had better records than him.

    You mentioned 1976 when Terry was 4-4 and his backup was 6-0.

    Looks like another all decade QB saw something very similar. How many more would you like ?

    Ever hear of Mike Rae ?
    When Oakland won the Super Bowl he was 2-0 and Stabler lost a game.
    If Stabler doesn’t lose that game they match the Dolphins undefeated season.
    Is this getting silly yet ?

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    Speaking of Mike Rae, here is another example of why Stabler was on the all decade team and Anderson wasn’t.

    Look at the QB ratings.
    Anderson was well known for his bad big game performances.
    Great QB against the bottom feeders.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    erbaerba Posts: 285 ✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:
    Tabe- You have a hockey icon.

    Want me to list all the NHL backup goalies who had better season AND playoff records then the starters ?

    Be careful Goldenage, you're starting to let your true identity come out. You already posted a random picture of Bobby Orr blocking a shot from Bobby Hull.

  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @coolstanley said:
    Add playoff games and Bradshaw has a better percentage. But .593 vs .573 is a very thin margin. And that's only because the backups played fewer games.

    You don't have to make the case that Terry was better than his backups. They weren't, as I said before. I'm just showing that those teams were loaded and could win with whoever at QB, especially in the 70s, much like the Aikman Cowboys during his prime.

  • Options
    82FootballWaxMemorys82FootballWaxMemorys Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 7, 2023 2:06PM
    A Little better

    @dallasactuary said:
    Was Hank Aaron a lot better than Hank Bauer? And yes, I think this a perfect analogy.

    More Like Aaron compared to McCovey

    Folks I clicked on wrong button meant to chose, "a lot" and unable to change vote....

    Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,115 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    I'll stick with Bauer. Aikman was no McCovey. But more to the point, Bauer has a lot more "rings" than Aaron; the single only reason why people think Aikman was even very good, let alone great, is that he, too, had lots of "rings". The Yankees carried Bauer as the Cowboys carried Aikman; hence the analogy.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    @Tabe said:

    @coolstanley said:
    Add playoff games and Bradshaw has a better percentage. But .593 vs .573 is a very thin margin. And that's only because the backups played fewer games.

    I'm just showing that those teams were loaded and could win with whoever at QB,

    Absolutely false.

    Kruczek played out of his mind that year.

    If he had a 39 and 17 QB rating like he did the two years after 1976 when he had a 75 QB rating then the Steelers are not 6-0 with him at QB in 1976.

    The Packers were 4-0 with a QB who had an abysmal QB rating when Starr went down.
    Kruczek was incredible and ended up with a better QB rating then the hurt Bradshaw that year.

    Your statement is false.
    The Steelers got a small upgrade at QB that year as a backup played out of his mind over an injured starter.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    I’m beginning to believe that posters here just never watched the games back then.

    They think they did, but they probably were 8 years old back then and now think if they just look at stats they’ll understand football in the 70’s.

    Great football teams RAN THE FOOTBALL night and day in the 70’s.
    These teams QB’s (especially poor Griese) mostly threw only on 3rd and 8-15.

    Their completion percentages were low and their yards per receptions were high.

    Look at Griese’s numbers in the 1972 and 1973 playoffs.
    He’s one of my favorites because he was a total team player. Never complained and did his job, and never hurt his team like Anderson did in 82 SB and Staubach did in 75 SB.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    Griese 3 for 6 in this AFC championship game.
    Total team player. Not an all decade QB and shouldn’t have been. Loved him.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @4for4 said:

    Kruczek was incredible and ended up with a better QB rating then the hurt Bradshaw that year.

    TIL that a 0:3 TD:INT ratio with a rating that wouldn't make the top 10 is "incredible".

    You literally made my case for me.

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,210 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the big difference here is that Bradshaw was having trouble beating out his back ups (Terry Hanratty?) and the other QBs were hurt.

    Bradshaw was a great athlete and had a great arm. Not to bright is what I have heard.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,115 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A LOT better

    @Tabe said:

    @4for4 said:

    Kruczek was incredible and ended up with a better QB rating then the hurt Bradshaw that year.

    TIL that a 0:3 TD:INT ratio with a rating that wouldn't make the top 10 is "incredible".

    You literally made my case for me.

    Yes, he did. He doesn't realize it and he will never admit it, obviously, but yes, he did. I am wondering if Terry Bradshaw is a close relative of @4for4; the energy and emotion he puts in to worshiping such a mediocre QB is baffling otherwise.

    I will also say it's a bit jarring to no longer be the most arrogant poster on this forum. It's OK, but it's something I'm going to have to adjust to.

    Finally, apropos of nothing, have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? For some reason, it popped into my head when I read that Mike Kruczek played "out of his mind" in 1976.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not too bright QB's dont call their own plays.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

Sign In or Register to comment.