View Single Post
Old 09-29-2011, 08:28 PM   #95
Male30Dan
Diamond Member
 
Male30Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Waco, TX
Posts: 8,141
Male30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo View Post
i do not understand your "molds" at all.... (ie your groupings)

to me Aikmen, Dilfer (in the end, when he settled down with the ravens) and Rypien are the most similar (good arms, and will never kill you with mistakes but need a full berlin wall in front of them to really be effective because they just aren't mobile enough) although he was of course BETTER than the other two.. but in the same mold. But put aikmen on a "normal" team (without perhaps teh greatest Oline in the history of football, one of the greatest RBS, an alltime great wideout, a stiffling D.. etc...) and he would have been viewed as an "adequate" qb.. imho. Basically he would have been Bledsoe.

and.. also... I would probably classify Steve YOung as EASILY the greatest QB you mentioned (only Manning/brady could even make a case, but i think he is better) By the time he took over teh reigns at SF the REST of teh team had deteriorated markedly. he was behind a crappy line, had worse running backs and a worse defense... and had to carry the whole thing completely by himself. He was AWESOME. he could run when he needed to, but was smart enough to pick apart the D when they shifted to account for his legs. He had the shortest period of "prime" (other than Rypen and Dilfer.. who never reall HAD "primes") to brag on... but what he did with so little around him was simply incredible.
To judge his molds and then compare Aikman to Bledsoe is just strange. Bledsoe was a gunslinger and Aikman was FAR from that. Seems like you are classifying based on mobility and I don't think that was Dalm's point. He was talking about the type of QB in terms of risk/reward of their playing style and how likely you would have to say something along the lines of "well, ya have to take the good with the bad with this guy."

I do think Young was really, really good though. I remember his QB rating being crazy and his completion percentage being in the 70s or just under at times. It took him forever to get his shot but he played very well when he did. To be honest, I probably forget just how good he was because I despised him so very much given the Dallas/S.F. rivalry.
__________________
Male30Dan is offline   Reply With Quote