|
Pages :
1
2
3
4
[ 5]
6
7
8
GTripp0012 01-13-2009, 04:53 PM I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.Fair enough, but his numbers were really, really, really bad in the years where the Cowboys weren't the greatest 21 player roster ever assembled.
I mentioned this above, but his career completion percentage is 61.5, which is very, very good for his era. But, that's obviously a misleading figure because he never, ever once got within 2 points of that on either side.
Without the greatest Cowboys line ever, and having Irvin in his prime, and Smith in his, Aikman is something like a 56% passer. It's totally not fair to Aikman to take away his prime years and grade him, obviously, but it's clear on a lesser team that not only is he not in the hall of fame, but he likely fails to make the pro bowl.
I don't actually know how bad the Cowboys were from 1997-1999 or from 1988-1989. I suspect they weren't good at all, but whether they were horrible, or just not playoff caliber, it probably would make a big difference in how we (I) perceive Aikman today.
firstdown 01-13-2009, 04:53 PM Come on people McNabb PUKED on his center in the biggest game in sports and that by itself excludes him.
GTripp0012 01-13-2009, 04:56 PM so who get HOF? Do you have to be equal or better than Marino???
Does P. Manning get in? Is he better than Marino?No, of course not. Being one of the very best players of your era at your postion is the criteria I always use.
Compared to Young, and later Favre, Aikman doesn't really hold up in the production category. But the three Super Bowl are automatic.
I just wish they would put the whole TEAM into the hall of fame. Why exclude some players who played on a three time super bowl champion? They all won it together, why aren't they all recognized together?
firstdown 01-13-2009, 04:59 PM Fair enough, but his numbers were really, really, really bad in the years where the Cowboys weren't the greatest 21 player roster ever assembled.
I mentioned this above, but his career completion percentage is 61.5, which is very, very good for his era. But, that's obviously a misleading figure because he never, ever once got within 2 points of that on either side.
Without the greatest Cowboys line ever, and having Irvin in his prime, and Smith in his, Aikman is something like a 56% passer. It's totally not fair to Aikman to take away his prime years and grade him, obviously, but it's clear on a lesser team that not only is he not in the hall of fame, but he likely fails to make the pro bowl.
I don't actually know how bad the Cowboys were from 1997-1999 or from 1988-1989. I suspect they weren't good at all, but whether they were horrible, or just not playoff caliber, it probably would make a big difference in how we (I) perceive Aikman today.
Well if we took away the Hogs the Skins would probably have never won a SB so that point is pretty usless.
GTripp0012 01-13-2009, 05:00 PM Well if we took away the Hogs the Skins would probably have never won a SB so that point is pretty usless.Well, we also never put Joe Theismann/Doug Williams/Mark Rypien into the hall of fame.
Which is sort of the whole point.
saden1 01-13-2009, 05:18 PM BTW, what are we talking here? "First ballot HoF", "will get in few years after eligibility", "will get in eventually?"
GTripp0012 01-13-2009, 05:20 PM BTW, what are we talking here? "First ballot HoF", "will get in few years after eligibility", "will get in eventually?"I think the assumption with players that 'deserve' it are players that should get in at some point, but that is an important distinction.
firstdown 01-13-2009, 05:27 PM Well, we also never put Joe Theismann/Doug Williams/Mark Rypien into the hall of fame.
Which is sort of the whole point.
I think we are talking about two different things and I'm not going to go back and read so. Have A Nice Night I'm Going Home.
SmootSmack 01-13-2009, 05:56 PM BTW, what are we talking here? "First ballot HoF", "will get in few years after eligibility", "will get in eventually?"
Hadn't really thought about that. Pick your poison.
djnemo65 01-13-2009, 06:21 PM Warner has a great chance because he not only won a Superbowl (and counting) but also captured two MVP titles, which puts him in very elite company (I know Manning and Favre are the only players ever to win more than two). I think a Superbowl appearance this year would cement a spot in Canton for Warner.
McNabb is more difficult to evaluate. He captained some excellent teams and put up huge numbers but he choked in a lot of big games. He was never at any point in his career considered one of the best 3-5 players or even QB's in the league and, while he dominated QB play in the NFC for four years or so, it was during a time when the NFC was considered to be vastly inferior to the AFC. Throw in a 3 interception performance in the Superbowl - as well as a nerve-induced on field vomiting - and you have a borderline guy.
I think this year is huge for him. Nevertheless, McNabb is the kind of guy who could get in in 20 years even if he doesn't get in right away, because his numbers are going to age well.
|