NFL Top 5 RB'S

[Don Jacob]

i agree ^.....shallow how come you don't post more in this section?

we need more people in here that can talk football like this ,or sports in general

["THE" MoSav]

how you gonna say if Manning was on the Pats they would have won the superbowl, then go and say well if Brady is the best the Aikman should be too...If Brady is great because of the people around him and the coaching like you are saying if thats why he is winning superbowls then you can say that MORE About Aikman..he probably had like the best supporting cast of all time for a good 4 years (Besides the 94 NINERS  ) or one of the best ever...Aikman should be considered one of the greatest i agree, he has the best passer rating ever in the playoffs..But Aikman had a WAYYYY better supporting cast then Brady and his defense was just as good. The BOYS WERE LOADED

What does the idea that Manning would have Superbowls with the Pats have to do with Aikman being acknowleged. The mid 90s Cowboys weren't too different than the early 2000s Pats as far as overall quality. What Dallas lost in system they made up for in individual players. NE had a better system and game plan, but Dallas had more stars, and that showed in their wins. While NE squeezed through tight games to win theie playoff runs and Superbowl, Dallas walked through teams, never winning by less than a 10 point lead. All three Superbowls NE won were by FGs and quite a few playoff games were decided like that as well.


Anyway, my point was that both teams won because of a lot more than a single QB effort and while Brady gets so much praise for his playing Aikman never got that same praise. I was just wondering why. Brady never had any 350 yard Superbowl games and each game came down to amazing defense by the Pats. I just think that if Manning was on Buffalo all this time and BRady was on Detroit neither would have any championships but Manning would still be Perfect Touch Payton while I don't think Brady would be looked at like the star he is. I can't prove, I could be wrong, but nothing about his numbers or watching him play make me think he could win with a mediocre team and mediocre system.

good points, i agree with alot of that. we both made good points. no point arguing for days. +1 for good football conv 8)ersation!

to answer this question ^^^The reason why is because Brady won Sb's with no namers on offense Averge Wr's at best and only once did they have a good RB (Corey Dillion, but not even as good as he was 5 years ago) And Aikman had the best run game in the NFL so people were putting 8 in the box at times opening it up for Troy plus Alvin Harper, MICHEAL IRVIN, and Jay Novaceck, not to mention Emmitt and Moose out of the backfield, and the best O-LINE EVER!  Thats why he never got as much praise, it seemed like Emmitt got most the praise, where as it seemed like Brady won with a good defense (But no better then Dallas had in the 90's, always a top 5 defense) and an average offense with a GREAT GREAT QB..I think Aikman deserves a ton of credit and WAYYYY more then he gets, he won 3 fuckin superbowls, but i just think its the talent surrounding him compared to Brady leaves him with less credit, sad but true..Wouldnt you agree?