Dibs Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 The consensus with my group of friends has pretty much always been.... Troy Aikman had basically the same talent as Drew Bledsoe. The logic goes... If Bledsoe had the O-Line & the skills talent that Aikman had around him, he would be HOF material as well. (read neither should be HOFers) When Aikman lost his supporting cast, he simply became the stubborn/statue we all saw in Bledsoe. There is a similar argument regarding Emmit Smith(though personally I think he proved himself as the years went on). Still....Barry or Thurman in the Cowboys backfield.....mmmmm. I guess what I'm saying is... 1. Aikman = overrated 2. Bledsoe = underrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 1. Aikman = winner 2. Bledsoe = loser Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Comparing Troy Aikman to Bledsoe isn't a good comparison at all. Bledsoe smokes Aikman in every statistical catagory statistically which btw is what I think The HALL OF FAME should be about not team accomplishments, anyway the statistically the qb most compareable to Aikman is Mark Brunell TOTAL | 147 | 2576 4334 59.4 30037 6.9 174 102= Brunell TOTAL | 165 | 2898 4715 61.5 32942 7.0 165 141 = Aikman Why is Aikman in the hall of fame? Because he had an allstar offensive line a rb to carry the load and a tremendous defense. Statistically he's not better then Mark Brunell let alone.... TOTAL | 188 | 3749 6548 57.3 43447 6.6 244 198= Drew Bledsoe Maybe I'm wrong but the hall of fame to me shouldnt be based on a team accomplishment. Aikman was a good quaterback but he doesnt match up statistically to even Mark Brunell and if you asked the average fan if Brunell or Bledsoe should make the Hall they'd likely respond no way in hell. Aikman was given praise because of what the cowboys did. It wasnt justly deserved imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 The consensus with my group of friends has pretty much always been.... Troy Aikman had basically the same talent as Drew Bledsoe. The logic goes... If Bledsoe had the O-Line & the skills talent that Aikman had around him, he would be HOF material as well. (read neither should be HOFers) When Aikman lost his supporting cast, he simply became the stubborn/statue we all saw in Bledsoe. There is a similar argument regarding Emmit Smith(though personally I think he proved himself as the years went on). Still....Barry or Thurman in the Cowboys backfield.....mmmmm. I guess what I'm saying is... 1. Aikman = overrated 2. Bledsoe = underrated 695020[/snapback] Big difference between the two...Aikman had heart, Bledsoe doesnt Aikman was also able to read a defense better then Bledsoe enabling him to get rid of the ball faster Aikman was on the downside of his career when the Cowboys talent level dropped, you cant judge a guy by the last couple years of his career I guess Joe Montana was overrated too since he wasnt the same QB when he was with KC as he was with San Fran Bledsoe is a scared little girl in the pocket waiting for the sack to come, always has and always will, cant wait to see Owens flip out next year when Bledsoe takes a bad sack when he is open or when Bledsoe lays him out to get hit like he did with Keyshawn last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 E. Smith is one of the greatest backs ever, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Comparing Troy Aikman to Bledsoe isn't a good comparison at all. Bledsoe smokes Aikman in every statistical catagory statistically which btw is what I think The HALL OF FAME should be about not team accomplishments you cant judge a player simply on statistics...look at Dave Krieg and the numbers he put up during his career, by his numbers you would think he is one of the best ever when in fact he isnt and I doubt he will ever be a hall of famer the fact is a player can play on a team or teams that just are not very good and he can end up putting up huge numbers because of it you have to look at the whole picture you could probably look at Vinny Testeverde's numbers and think he is a hall of famer but he isnt and will probably never get in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Troy Aikman: 3 SB wins and 16-4 record as a playoff starter. Winningest QB of ANY decade. 24 TDs, 17 interceptions as a playoff starter. 5 TDs, 1 interception in the SB. 64% competions in the post season. Drew Bledsoe: Zero SB wins and a 8-38 record all time vs teams with 10 or more wins. 3 wins, 4 losses as a playoff starter. 5 TDs, 12 interceptions as a playoff starter. 51% completions in the post season. Mark Brunell: Zero SB wins and 5-6 career playoff record. 11 postseason TDs, 11 postseason interceptions. 51% completions in the playoffs. Legends are made in the postseason and the best play their best when there's more on the line. There aren't too many guys who've outplayed Troy Aikman when it matters most. One of the most accurate QBs of all time. Great players play on great teams - it's not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Why is Aikman in the hall of fame? 695022[/snapback] 3 super bowl rings? Maybe I'm wrong but the hall of fame to me shouldnt be based on a team accomplishment. Aikman was a good quaterback but he doesnt match up statistically to even Mark Brunell and if you asked the average fan if Brunell or Bledsoe should make the Hall they'd likely respond no way in hell. Aikman was given praise because of what the cowboys did. It wasnt justly deserved imo. I see it differently. The leader of a three time super bowl winning team and perennial playoff contender deserves to be in the hall. You say that the hall shouldn't be based on team accomplishment, but if you are the clear leader of that team .....that touched the ball on every play...then that means something. On top of that, he's among the league's all-time leader's in completions, passing yards, and passing TDs. That's what the hall is based on. I hated the guy when he played, but as a football fan, you gotta respect. And let's not even talk about Emmitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Drew Bledsoe: Zero SB wins and a 8-38 record all time vs teams with 10 or more wins. 695039[/snapback] A record that is beyond pathetic and should (but won't) end all the "Bledsoe in the HOF" talk immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 A record that is beyond pathetic and should (but won't) end all the "Bledsoe in the HOF" talk immediately. 695042[/snapback] Few players regularly come up smaller when it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Bledsoe is a scared little girl in the pocket waiting for the sack to come, always has and always will, cant wait to see Owens flip out next year when Bledsoe takes a bad sack when he is open or when Bledsoe lays him out to get hit like he did with Keyshawn last year 695032[/snapback] Big difference between the two...Aikman had heart, Bledsoe doesnt Drew Bledsoe: Zero SB wins and a 8-38 record all time vs teams with 10 or more wins. 3 wins, 4 losses as a playoff starter. 5 TDs, 12 interceptions as a playoff starter. 51% completions in the post season. Legends are made in the postseason and the best play their best when there's more on the line. A record that is beyond pathetic and should (but won't) end all the "Bledsoe in the HOF" talk immediately. Few players regularly come up smaller when it matters. Now that's what I call posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 its a question that will never really truely be answered...yes dallas had an awsome line while aikman was there and yes you could probably put most any Qb behind that line and hell do a good job..as good as aikman did?..who knows, probably not...but a younger bledsoe(maybe 4 years ago) behind that huge pocket protecting o-line(at the time I beleive it was the biggest, strongest in NFL), with E.smith and a top notch TE and he probably woulda had even better numbers than he has now.. as far as the HOF goes, its a bunch of crap!....every year they have to put 5 guys in..so your telling me that theres really that many great players/coaches from the NFL to put 5 in every year...once you put in all the "A" players all thats left to do is push the "B's" up to "A's" and pretty soon all the once "D's" will be "A's" and youve got crap going into the HOF jut to put ppl in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 On top of that, he's among the league's all-time leader's in completions, passing yards, and passing TDs. That's what the hall is based on. I hated the guy when he played, but as a football fan, you gotta respect. And let's not even talk about Emmitt. 695040[/snapback] Passing yards, not in the top 20. Behind such luminaries as Steve Deberg and Kerry Collins. Passing TDs, barely in the top FIFTY. Aikman was a very good QB... but let's not kid ourselves here. He's going into the HOF because he had Emmitt in the backfield, a line full of Pro Bowl players in front of him, and Irvin to throw to. John Elway would have won a lot more than two Super Bowls if he'd had talent like that surrounding him. Aikman might never have gotten to a Super Bowl with the pre-Terrell Davis teams Elway carried there. (Can anyone even name Denver's starting RBs in Elway's first three SBs?) Hell, for all the Brady-haters on here, try telling me his supporting cast ranks within a country mile of Aikman's... and yet, he also has three rings. Aikman = Hall of Famer? Yeah. Among the best ever? Debatable. Aikman = Bob Griese. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Passing yards, not in the top 20. Behind such luminaries as Steve Deberg and Kerry Collins. Passing TDs, barely in the top FIFTY. Aikman was a very good QB... but let's not kid ourselves here. He's going into the HOF because he had Emmitt in the backfield, a line full of Pro Bowl players in front of him, and Irvin to throw to. John Elway would have won a lot more than two Super Bowls if he'd had talent like that surrounding him. Aikman might never have gotten to a Super Bowl with the pre-Terrell Davis teams Elway carried there. (Can anyone even name Denver's starting RBs in Elway's first three SBs?) Hell, for all the Brady-haters on here, try telling me his supporting cast ranks within a country mile of Aikman's... and yet, he also has three rings. Aikman = Hall of Famer? Yeah. Among the best ever? Debatable. Aikman = Bob Griese. JMO. 695057[/snapback] 100% agree. I will say this I'm by no means a fan of Tom Brady but even without the superbowls on his current season by season pace he'll have hall of fame worthy #'s add in the superbowls he'll have accomplished much more then Aikman ever did. Aikman was a good qb on a great team. He's not in the league of the all time best though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Maybe I'm wrong but the hall of fame to me shouldnt be based on a team accomplishment. Aikman was a good quaterback but he doesnt match up statistically to even Mark Brunell and if you asked the average fan if Brunell or Bledsoe should make the Hall they'd likely respond no way in hell. Aikman was given praise because of what the cowboys did. It wasnt justly deserved imo. 695022[/snapback] HoF is not all about just numbers....it does include the ability of the player to raise to the occasion consistently and carry his team on his shoulders....What Aikmen had was a very sharp passing game. He rarely made mistakes and threw the ball right where it needed to be and on time. Statistics should not be the lone criteria for HoF in his case because he had a STUD RB (just as you said). When you have Emmit in your back field you don't have to throw 30 times like a Brunell or a Bledsoe...... Successful QBs have a smaller # of throws, but higher % of completions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC81 Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 you cant judge a player simply on statistics...look at Dave Krieg and the numbers he put up during his career, by his numbers you would think he is one of the best ever when in fact he isnt and I doubt he will ever be a hall of famer the fact is a player can play on a team or teams that just are not very good and he can end up putting up huge numbers because of it you have to look at the whole picture you could probably look at Vinny Testeverde's numbers and think he is a hall of famer but he isnt and will probably never get in 695035[/snapback] Buffalo's own Joe Ferguson is up among the career leaders in several categories. I wouldn't call him a Hall-of-Famer either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 E. Smith is one of the greatest backs ever, period. 695033[/snapback] Emmitt wasn't even the best back of his era. He benefitted from a stellar offensive line (Newton, Stepnoski, Tunei, Williams) that could end up having a couple of their own HOF'ers. Imagine Barry Sanders or Thurman Thomas behind that line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Gee, I thought winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years made you one of the 3 best QBs in NFL history??? At least that's what I remember reading here a couple years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 This is absurd....anyone who makes the argument that a guy only had success because the quality of his teammates, totally discounts any talent that the player in question, contributed to the teams' success. Yes, Aikman had a great line, a great running back and a good wide receiver. Does the mind ever rebel, and ask how great Emmit might have been, how good Irving might have been, or how dominant that O-line might have been, had Troy Aikman not bee the QB? The logic has to work both ways... Aikman certainly belongs in the HOF, if anyone else does...if you can't judge a player by his results (see AD's post in this thread) why bother having a hall of fame? I am not a Bledsoe hater, but his career doesn't even come close to comparing to Aikman. I think Drew needs at least one more Super Bowl appearence, and a great season or two, to even deserve consideration. Unlike baseball, football stats really don't mean a whole hell of a lot, if the W-L record is not good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mborn Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 E. Smith is one of the greatest backs ever, period. 695033[/snapback] You must be too young to have watched Walter Payton. WP never ran out of bounds to avoid a hit like ES. WP never left a game with minor injury, when his team was losing like ES. Smith doesn't rank in the top ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts