Micah Prescott wrote:Mr B wrote:Micah Prescott wrote:I'll give you the Packers I guess but for whatever reason the Packers were never a problem for Dallas back then. And I think Rodgers is vastly superior to Favre. The AFC as a whole was garbage during Troy's time. Those early 90s years anyway. Everyone knew that if they could make it to the Super Bowl it was theirs.
You seem like a feasible fan to me. Ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) if Troy didn't have those rings would you consider him better than Romo? If you remove the wins and losses and just compare the two of them in a vacuum who would you consider more talented.
The "lore" rewards ONLY the QB position for wins and losses and it's BS to be honest.
Everyone understands that Barry Sanders was better then Emmitt Smith. Despite the fact that Barry couldn't win anything and Smith has 3 rings. So with RBs fans are able to look past the "team". That's exactly how QBs should be treated too. But they aren't and it's BS.
If Dak won a ring this year it wouldn't be because he got better. It would be because his defense did.
Did Stafford suddenly get worse at playing QB this year? No his team got worse. He is the same.
Right now Micah Parsons is complaining that the MVP award should go to others, not just QBs.
QBs always have, and probably always will, get way way way way way too much credit for wins and losses. I can accept that most fans will sheepishly have that mindset, it's fine. But it is always nice to run into fans who are more realistic and open minded than that.
If we removed all their accomplishments and stats and all things were equal (type of offense and era) and I had a choice between a young Troy Aikman at the start of his prime or a young Tony Romo at the start of his prime I’m taking Troy Aikman 10 out of 10 times. Troy was superior to Romo in every physical way and had the temperament I prefer out of my QB.
No not their stats, those are individual accomplishments. JUST the wins and loses which are accomplished by entire rosters and coaching staffs.
If we ignore their team success, and just look at what each of them did individually, I don't think anyone could say Troy is better than Tony with a straight face. The only reason Troy get the nod is those rings, and the "lore" around them. And that is all it is. "LORE".
Obviously Troy was the superior prospect coming out of college.
Andrew Luck was also a superior prospect and he lost to Oklahoma State before being drafted, no one cared because they understood that is the result of the team and not Andrew Luck.
Just answer the question…
If all things are equal and you had a choice between the two, young Troy entering his prime or young Romo entering his prime, and you can put them in any offense you want who are you taking?