Reply With Quote
Alright -- for all who say that the Cowboys O-line "made" Irvin and Aikman, other than Larry Allen, name me one Hall-of-Famer in that group. Just one.
I still think its a stretch but you raise good points that is why I said it was still possible, especially in Bledsoe's case....Testaverde..I am still not convinced.No it isn't. An in his prime Drew Bledsoe had more talent than Troy at any time. Put him with that offense and he is most definitely first ballot.
Alright -- for all who say that the Cowboys O-line "made" Irvin and Aikman, other than Larry Allen, name me one Hall-of-Famer in that group. Just one.
Agreed...but that doesn't mean Aikman wasn't a good QB.Just like you can't penalize Montana for being on a winner, you can't penalize Aikman. But in terms of QBing skills, I don't see that Aikman had anything over the other two, and he certainly had weapons they never did.
I don't think the '90s Cowboys are the '90s Cowboys with Bledsoe or Vinnie.
I think they are the Buddy Ryan or McNabb Eagles (always getting close but never getting there or winning while there), the 1999-2003 Rams (win a bunch, get to a couple SBs, win one), or Moon's Oilers/Peyton's Colts (damn good every year but can't win the big one).
Testaverde is a stretch I admit, but I don't think it's that outrageous when you consider Vinnie's career and numbers for a bunch of fair/mediocre teams.
Throw one more thing out there: if Norv Turner hadn't shown up, Aikman wouldn't even have made it as a Cowboy.
Definetly.Throw one more thing out there: if Norv Turner hadn't shown up, Aikman wouldn't even have made it as a Cowboy.
I don't care that they aren't in the HoF, but Stepnoski was a five time Pro-Bowler, Erik Willaims four times, Nate Newton six times, and Jay Novacek five times. I don't know how much they overlapped, but I bet at least 1-2 times four of them made the team.
Find another offensive line with those kinds of credentials.
Finally, almost never does a running back or quarterback make a lineman. (Exception might be soem of the guys on the Bills line when OJ was there). The other way around happens a lot.
I think there's an equally plausible argument that goes that the Triplets made that offensive line look awfully good as well. What's telling to me is that from year-to-year, some of the faces on that line changed, but the results were fairly consistent.
Either they were remarkably lucky to find guys who just happened to fit in and excel, or the guys that they found were benefitted rather significantly by playing with Hall-of-Fame caliber skill players.
Ultimately, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes, but it's untenable to me to argue that the offensive line was the decisive factor for those teams.
I think that's incorrect, for the most part. Say you have a fairly poor offensive line that is able to open holes but not gash a defense. A running back who sees the fleeting holes and bursts through them before they close will gain yards, while a less assertive or less talented back will be stonewalled or dropped for losses. The hole is exactly the same in each scenario, but the result is different -- and not because of anything that the offensive line did.
As someone who toiled in high school and college as an o-lineman, you can be sure that I'm all about according fat guys their due respect. And certainly, offensive linemen make a significant difference to a team's success. But whether an offensive line appears to be good or not frequently depends on the quality of the backs running behind them. A mediocre group can be made to look great; a great group can be made to look fairly mediocre as well.
I think what everyone is forgetting is that no one can have success in football at any level without the help of a team.
Erik Williams
Troy Aikman would never have taken any of the teams to the Super Bowl that Elway did before Shanny got there.
Which is why I said...
You put Aikman with Shanahan or Walsh,
I knew you were an O-lineman, and I could be on shaky ground here, but fortunately I have the advantage in that you don't know anything about presenting a good argument.
I disagree that those things are not taken into consideration when evaluating line play. That's EXACTLY what we are attempting to do when we talk about how guys like Sayers or Sanders were great because they had mediocre (or worse) lines.I think that's incorrect, for the most part. Say you have a fairly poor offensive line that is able to open holes but not gash a defense. A running back who sees the fleeting holes and bursts through them before they close will gain yards, while a less assertive or less talented back will be stonewalled or dropped for losses. The hole is exactly the same in each scenario, but the result is different -- and not because of anything that the offensive line did.
Offensive lineman ultimately are graded on how well they carry out their assignments. If they have clods in the backfield, the experts (of which I am certainly not one) make sure they recognize that. Guys like John Hannah and Anthony Munoz are pretty much universally acknowledged as being the best ever, even when they didn't play with very good QBs and RBs.
Now the difficulty may be when you get 2-3 good offensive lineman together, there probably is a synergy that makes it the whole greater than the sum of the parts. So maybe the right guard gets credit for a lot of stuff that happens only because his right tackle is so good. That still doesn't take away fromt he fact that the line itself is doing its job.
Again, I think even the most minimially-sophisticated fan at least tries to normalize performance of the backfield to the performance of the line. When try to point out when a QB is getting time or when he's rushed. We note when the line is making good pushes. So I disagree that it's some big smorgasbord that can't be picked apart.But whether an offensive line appears to be good or not frequently depends on the quality of the backs running behind them. A mediocre group can be made to look great; a great group can be made to look fairly mediocre as well.
And again, there are numerous instances where we say "so-and-so" is good, too bad his line sucks, so the line automatically doesn't get credit for the backfield's successes.
a good line is a part of it, but it takes more than that to be a successful team.
Maybe if his career had ended in 1993. Nate Newton has a better case.
Frankly, I think the best of that whole bunch (other than Larry Allen) was Tuinei, but he didn't have the high profile that Williams did, because Madden never attached his lips to Tuinei's rear end.
you asked to name one, and I thought that shoogarbear did a fine job of pointing out the rest.
No I don't think anyone is forgetting that. But part of what we do as fans is try to determine what components of that team most contribute to the success.
Otherwise, there's no point in individual awards, Pro Bowls, Hall of Fame, etc, right?
I know you're not trying to say this, but taking it the extreme, we can't distinguish between the relative worths of Rocky Bleier and Tony Dorsett?
Williams was good, im not sure about HOF good. Who knows?
Has anyone mentioned how good Novacek & Moose were in that O as well?
Next I guess we'll hear how bad Dallas' D was & how JJ wasn't a good coach at all.
For these guys not being much they sure came together as a team pretty nicely.
I even think they were good enough to win a Super Bowl.........or 2.................or
If you want to point out how "good" JJ was as a coach, lets talk Miami Dolphins football...
Those Cowboy's teams were soo good I bet even a dumbass like Barry Switzer could coach them to a Super Bowl.....
Hey Dio, I owe you a case of beer.
I see where you're going shoog and you are right, I am not saying we don't need to count yards or other individual production. I guess what I was trying to say that while the o-line is a key component, I don't think anymore important than another.No I don't think anyone is forgetting that. But part of what we do as fans is try to determine what components of that team most contribute to the success.
Otherwise, there's no point in individual awards, Pro Bowls, Hall of Fame, etc, right?
I know you're not trying to say this, but taking it the extreme, we can't distinguish between the relative worths of Rocky Bleier and Tony Dorsett
Crap, I'm going to puke from having to say so many complementary things about friggin Cowboys . . .
Jimmy Johnson brought in that talent to Dallas. He didn't have the flexibility to do that when he got to Miami. I would have liked to see what JJ would have done the rest of the decade when he had to deal with cap space and such. I think some of the desicions would have been different if he were involved in making them instead just Jones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
