NFC/AFC Championship Picks

I don't agree with the assessment of Aikman as 3rd tier QB. Aikman was the kind of QB who eschewed big stats in favor of team wins. When he had to, he was quite capable of carrying the Cowboys. The defense offers the 1994 NFC Championship Game as Exhibit A.

The Cowboys trailed 21-0 a few minutes into the game, but Aikman almost single-handedly kept the Boys in the game. Dallas was undermanned against the Niners, eventually losing, but a lesser QB would've folded up the tents early on. In fact, for having earned 3 rings and all, I thought Aikman was more impressive in that loss than he was in any of his team's big wins.

 

O.k., Luckman is another pioneer - I would probably replace him with Sonny Jurgensen and keep Griese on the list. Jurgensen really didn't produce any winning teams; he just had good stats for his era.

 

And that is why I put him in the 2nd tier. He led a dynasty. Otherwise, just based on raw ability, he is probably a 3rd tier guy (and that wouldn't be too shabby of a list, either). He had an incredible OL - maybe the best we've seen in a long time.

 

Len Dawson is another possible nominee. I discounted him some because some of his prime years were in the early days of the AFL, and I'm not sure how strong that league was at that time. Although, we know that it got stronger by the late 60's.

 

You mean you would replace Jurgensen with Luckman? I think that's what you meant and I would agree. Still not sure I like Griese there, but I can't think of anybody else I like better.

On Aikman:

No doubt. Those guys were not only very good, but were together for a number of years, something that the football geniuses on TV say is necessary, but doesn't happen much anymore.

 

Oh yes - put Luckman on the list and take off Jurgensen. Not sure why I put Sonny there - Griese or Dawson are much more deserving.

Griese's stats are not very impressive because Miami was mostly a running team. But 8 pro bowls says something about his greatness. Being hurt most of their '72 perfect season probably hurts his legacy a little. But he still started the Super Bowl and then also led them in '73 to another title.

 

Nfl

What does Joe Montana ,Jim Kelly,Dan Marino ,John Unitas and Joe Namath have in common ? They all played High School Football in Pittsburgh or very close to the City but non played for the Steelers .

I heard Marino say he wanted to be a Steeler real bad .I was watching a Steelers game this year when we played Tampa Bay .Tampa's QB is from Pitts.and our backup who was playing at the time Charley Batch also played High School Football in Pitts. Whats the odds of a pro football game at home and both QB;s played in that City when in high school and there playing against each other as a pro .I am not talking about a major city like New York where that probably happens alot !

 

I get tired head anytime someone tells me Troy Aikman was only a great qb because of the team around him. As I look over the list of QBs listed, they all had great teams around them. When Dallas was great with Troy Emmit and Michael, those guys were some of the hardest working men in football. They came in early, sayed late. Troy was one of the most accurate qbs in the history of the game, some of the local sports reporters would talk about going to a practice and never seeing the ball hit the ground - his accuracy carried over to the games.

Elway was a great qb - but until his team got great, he didnt win. Brady is a great qb - but he had a great team around him as well - it takes nothing away from what Brady has done however

Montana would probably be my pick as one of the best ever - I saw him win a cotton bowl that they were down huge in, then go to the niners and make play after play to will his boys to wins - then he almost did it in KC!

troy is top tier, and probably the most underrated of all the top qbs

 

A couple of things against Aikman that keep him from the top tier: 1) His career was not especially long - only 12 years. 2) He may have been accurate, but that is not the only quality a QB should have. Many times an accurate QB gets picked off a lot compared to their TD's. Case in point is Ken Stabler - very accurate, but he also threw more picks than TD's. Aikman did not have a very good TD to pick ratio, either - 165 to 141. This can be explained by the fact that guys like Aikman and Stabler (esp. Stabler) don't have as much zip on the ball, so yes they are accurate but it also makes their throws easier to pick.

And the case can be made that had it not been for Elway, those early Bronco teams would not have even made it to three Super Bowls and subsequently lose. So to say that Elway "didn't win" until his teams got great is misleading - they did win and they won a lot of games, just not the big one. Same thing with a guy like Kelly. Kelly played a great game in their first Super Bowl loss against the Giants - other factors led to their loss, but you can't pin it on Kelly.

 

If you're going to call Terry Bradshaw a 2nd tier QB because he has 4 rings, I don't see how you push Aikman down to "tier 3" because he "only" has 3. You're discounting Aikman because the Cowboys were a great team, but why aren't you doing the same thing with Bradshaw?

This is not a good argument. Roger Staubach played 10 years. Bradshaw played 13. Like Aikman, both of those guys had great teams around them. Hmm.. maybe all those teams were great because they had a great QB?

Agreed, but I can't figure out what the rest of your criteria is for putting Aikman down.

Lots of teams have had everything but a great QB and won nothing. For years, the Chicago Bears had the greatest running back ever in Walter Payton. They almost always had a good, solid defense. Their QBs were almost always crummy. How many championships did they win by having Walter, a solid defense, and terrible QBs?

 

cc,

I did discount Bradshaw in my original post. Here is what I said:

"Terry Bradshaw - only makes the 2nd tier because of 4 rings and great ability to throw the deep ball. Otherwise, he was pretty average."

I would rank Aikman ahead of Bradshaw, but I don't see either of them being in the 1st team of all-time greats. Each of them only had one real physical talent - Aikman for throwing accurate short and mid-range passes, and Bradshaw for throwing a lethal deep ball. But neither of them could run or do anything else particularly special (other than lead dynasties, which is why they are in the discussion to begin with).

Staubach had a short career because of his service in Vietnam. Aikman had a short career because once he lost that great OL, he took a beating due to his immobility and lack of quick release ala a Dan Marino.

There is more to a team than just QB. We need to be careful not to put too much weight either way on their shoulders. Just like when people put down Manning (like they did Elway after 3 SB losses). It's a chicken and egg sort of thing. I would argue that teams like the 80's Broncos and the current Colts would not even make the playoffs were it not for their excellent QB's. If you switched Manning and Brady for all these years, I'm not convinced that N.E. still doesn't have 3 rings and Indy with none.

 

Andy, we will continue to disagree about Aikman, but I completely agree with you here.

 

Just one other thought on Aikman. Jimmy C. said he was one of the most underrated QB's ever. I'm not sure how a guy can be underrated when he makes the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligbility. I would venture to guess that most pundits would agree with where I have ranked him. I hardly ever hear of him in the discussion with the likes of Montana or Elway or Unitas.

I'm guessing that Aikman is sometimes perceived as underappreciated and underrated because he played on a team with several stars and strong personalities, and Aikman kind of stood apart from the shenanigans going on in Dallas at that time. And I imagine it's sometimes hard for non-Dallas fans to look at that team objectively, because of the distaste for guys like Irvin, Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson. They were definitely a mixed bag of class (ala Aikman and Emmitt) and wretchedness (the aforementioned three fit here).

 

Saints over the Bears----Blackbird predicts a "thawin'" of the field moments before kickoff!!!!!

Colts over the Pats

Way down DEEP in your heart, PSBC----you KNOW you're one of "Benson's Boys!!!":laugh: :laugh:

 

He was a good runner. I saw him many times and he was a good passer and a good runner and hard to bring down. Keep in mind back then you could hit a qb, not like today. He was rather larger for a qb back then, also he would block on a lot of end arounds.

 

Sonny only played on a few good teams ( back then Washington had the lowest payroll in NFL), even Unitas said, next to
Sammy Baugh, Sonny was the best passer that he had seen.

 

Sonny Jurgensen is definitely in my top 10 list...

 

Maybe my age is getting me here, did you see these guy play at their prime? Sonny Jeurgensen wasn't a pioneer. The 50's and on were not pioneer time. Sonny main time was the 60's, he might have went to the Eagles in the late 50's from Duke.

 

He was a great passer with no ol, for most of his years.