Matts4313 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 5 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said: And if he was any good at it, then his numbers would show it. But he wasn't, he was a good qb on great teams, not a great qb on good teams or any other variation of the phrase. He does not deserve any more praise than being "good" being that he was never especially good at ANY point in his career. he was pretty great at it. thats why his numbers are as good as they are in a low percentage play.... especially for the era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0LTSFAN4L1F3 Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Matts4313 said: he was pretty great at it. thats why his numbers are as good as they are in a low percentage play.... especially for the era. The numbers represent the performance/effectiveness of the quarterback. If the numbers suck, then he was not very effective. Therefore, he must not have done it very well. Its that simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Using just Aikman’s career years of 1989-2000 as the only reference point, Aikman ranks 15th in ANY/A+ among guys with at least 3 seasons worth of starts, behind guys like Elvis Grbac and Brad Johnson. He finishes tied with Steve McNair before McNair even hit his prime as a passer. Very damning: despite spending half of his career behind the greatest OL ever constructed, he ranks 12th in sack%+ for that era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.