It's June 07, 2024, 11:00:18 PM
Quote from: Shallow on December 12, 2006, 02:55:39 PMQuote from: MoSavThanLegit on December 12, 2006, 11:40:01 AMhow 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 LOADEDWhat 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!
Quote from: MoSavThanLegit on December 12, 2006, 11:40:01 AMhow 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 LOADEDWhat 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.
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