Quote:
Originally Posted by Male30Dan
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.
|
fair enough on the bledsoe/aikman failure of comparison... never having been a Pats nor Cowboys fan, I never really watched Bledsoe much...
but i wasn't actually trying to equate them in styles, I was just making th emobility point that you caught. Without Aikman's super line, he likely would've been a middle of the road QB. With a super line, Mark Rypien wasn't Dilfer (a QB that "didn't lose" the game for you) he was a STAR. Without a super line, Rypien was a marginal 2nd-stringer at best.
on THIS topic:::
Romo is able to do all sorts of things behind crappy O-lines that Aikman never would've been able to do. NEVER. Aikmen would've been killed. But Romo also has a hole in his brain. Chances are almost 100% that WITH a super line, Romo would still have a hole in his brain, and would've never had the calm success Aikmen had.