NFL Turning Point - XLVIII edition

[dukestar]

This may be a dumb question but what must we do to download it?

Install a browser plug-in such as Video Downloader Ultimate that handles youtube downloads.

Or even simpler...google "youtube to mp4"...click on first link returned...cut and paste youtube video url and download away...no need for any add ons...

 

[RockHawk]

Re: Manning,
One thing that stands out to me is after the last snap, Manning walks by every member of the defensive line and LB corp and directly to Kam & Earl to tell them congrats. He then seeks out Russell Wilson, and the rest are Seahawk players walking up to him (i.e. Wagner, Bennett).

I'm not generally one for reading into stuff, but this one seemed to jump out at me that Manning singled those safeties out as a sign of ultimate respect. You can see this at minute 35:00.

 

[volsunghawk]

Manning is pure class. How anybody can hate that guy is a mystery to me.

I don't think people hate Manning as much as they hate the excessive coverage he gets from the media.

This

Thing is, though, Manning has EARNED that level of coverage. It's not like he's Tebow or Manziel (or back further, Reggie Bush and Michael Vick), who were also ridiculously hyped by the media and constantly shoved down everyone's throats. Manning's going to be on the very short list of greatest NFL player of all time debate due to his continued excellence over his career. If he had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career, the debate over GOAT NFL QB would be done.

 

[kearly]

Manning is pure class. How anybody can hate that guy is a mystery to me.

Patriots fans hate him because they feel insulted that folks compare him to Brady's career. I didn't realize how deep it ran until looking at their response to Manning losing in the Superbowl. Seems a lot of them had a perfect Superbowl, Manning losing and Sherman getting hurt (since he had the audacity to disparage the great one).

That's true. As Mike Salk would say, it's "sports hate." Derek Jeter is kind of a similar case.

 

[sc85sis]

John Fox didn't prepare his team for anything Seattle brought, he didn't even prepare them for the noise.

Pete Carroll's staff had the Broncos completely planned out, they even had a contingency in case Prater blooped that kick in the middle of the field on kickoffs, which they talk about around the 17 minute mark. Just like how Seattle had that "if they jump off sides" go route shot in the NFCCG, they had an automatic blocking scheme switch on the fly if the Bronco's tried to kick it a certain way, and the players were reminding each other of this seconds before that kickoff. That's why Harvin had such a huge hole to run through despite the kick being executed to perfection.

Exactly. Everyone here knows I'm a Pete Carroll homer. Nevertheless, I couldn't help legitimately thinking how much Pete and his staff outcoached Fox and the Broncos--especially after watching this.

I remember Mike Rob saying in a radio interview (sometime in the last couple of years) that one of the things Pete was so good at was coaching situational football. That really showed up in the two examples you cite.

 

[HansGruber]

Manning is pure class. How anybody can hate that guy is a mystery to me.

I don't think people hate Manning as much as they hate the excessive coverage he gets from the media.

This

Thing is, though, Manning has EARNED that level of coverage. It's not like he's Tebow or Manziel (or back further, Reggie Bush and Michael Vick), who were also ridiculously hyped by the media and constantly shoved down everyone's throats. Manning's going to be on the very short list of greatest NFL player of all time debate due to his continued excellence over his career. If he had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career, the debate over GOAT NFL QB would be done.

Not really.

Those of us who watched Montana win 4 rings in an NFL that allowed defenses to mug guys would argue that. Even if Peyton was perfect in the Superbowl, he'd still only have three while enjoying protection from the refs that simply didn't exist in the 1980s.

Joe Montana was the definition of clutch. I'm no Whiners fan but any list that puts Manning over Montana would be laughable to me. Manning has just never played at that level. He's never been a clutch guy. His success has always come from building big early leads and playing from that advantage. When he gets behind, he chokes. He choked in his only Superbowl win, throwing a critical late pick that Rex Grossman gave right back to the Colts. That Bears offense was the biggest joke I've ever seen in a Superbowl (outside of the 1980s Broncos) and Manning still struggled mightily and almost lost the game. Joe Cool would just come out and keep doing his thing, methodically wearing down defenses and turning the smallest opportunities into game winning drives. His worst playoff games were better than Manning's best.

It's also absurd to put Manning over Brady. Brady is 20x the qb that Manning has ever been. What he did last season with that rag-tag motley crew of nobodies on offense was far more impressive than the Broncos chucking it every down against vastly inferior defenses, while also having 3 quality starters at RB to keep defenses honest. Brady was dealing with the loss of every impact starter on their offense - both TEs, half their offensive line, and a bunch of no name rookies at receiver with no running game to help out. It's amazing what he did with that team. I'm not sure Montana, Young, Aikman or any of the greats could have done that. Manning would have choked and blamed it on the offensive line.

I'm also with whoever mentioned Otto Graham. Never saw him play live, but did watch a compilation of his championship wins once and came away really impressed. He was just on another level than everyone else. A man playing against boys. Also more rings than anyone and he really did carry his teams.

Never understood the Johnny U thing and just chalked that up to nostalgia. Yeah yeah, I know he was the first modern qb prototype. But look at the career stats - almost 1:1 on TD:INTs, 78 passer rating, 54% pass completion. That wouldn't be good enough to start on a modern Superbowl team. And he had the advantage of surprise, since most teams just ran the ball and pass defense was nothing like today. You put a guy like Brady in the 50s and that would have been hilarious. Even a slow awkward Brady could have scrambled for a handful of TDs per season.

Anyway, GOAT is always a fun chat. Don't see Manning in that group though. I wouldn't even rank him with Aikman, who doesn't get enough credit nowadays for some weird reason.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I'm also with whoever mentioned Otto Graham. Never saw him play live, but did watch a compilation of his championship wins once and came away really impressed. He was just on another level than everyone else. A man playing against boys. Also more rings than anyone and he really did carry his teams.

Never understood the Johnny U thing and just chalked that up to nostalgia. Yeah yeah, I know he was the first modern qb prototype. But look at the career stats - almost 1:1 on TD:INTs, 78 passer rating, 54% pass completion. That wouldn't be good enough to start on a modern Superbowl team. And he had the advantage of surprise, since most teams just ran the ball and pass defense was nothing like today. You put a guy like Brady in the 50s and that would have been hilarious. Even a slow awkward Brady could have scrambled for a handful of TDs per season.

Anyway, GOAT is always a fun chat. Don't see Manning in that group though. I wouldn't even rank him with Aikman, who doesn't get enough credit nowadays for some weird reason.

I often beat the drum for Otto Graham so it might have been me. As for Unitus, as Les would say about Namath don't just go by the stats. If you saw him play as I did, you would understand why. VERY clutch like Montana. And remember you said yourself that the rules were very different in those days so the the TD to int ratio is going to be lower. But as you also mentioned, it is a subjective discussion. I mean hell, I'm old, but not old enough to have seen Graham play. Just have read a lot of stuff plus figure that if I guy went to the championship game of his league every year of his career he had to be really special.



And btw, I pretty much agree with your assessment of Peyton. Not in my top 5 cuz he has never been clutch and never will be.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Manning is pure class. How anybody can hate that guy is a mystery to me.

I don't think people hate Manning as much as they hate the excessive coverage he gets from the media.

This

Thing is, though, Manning has EARNED that level of coverage. It's not like he's Tebow or Manziel (or back further, Reggie Bush and Michael Vick), who were also ridiculously hyped by the media and constantly shoved down everyone's throats. Manning's going to be on the very short list of greatest NFL player of all time debate due to his continued excellence over his career. If he had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career, the debate over GOAT NFL QB would be done.

OR Luck...........

 

[brimsalabim]

It's almost comical how hard the producers had to work to find a turning point in the game for the broncos. They found one play where Earl bit and left the receiver in one on one coverage..... With Sherm.... As if that would have been a sure completion had the pass rush not gotten to Manning first.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Anyway, GOAT is always a fun chat. Don't see Manning in that group though. I wouldn't even rank him with Aikman, who doesn't get enough credit nowadays for some weird reason.

COMPLETELY agree on Aikman.

 

[loafoftatupu]

This may be a dumb question but what must we do to download it?

Install a browser plug-in such as Video Downloader Ultimate that handles youtube downloads.

Just use a Mac with Safari. Roland will give you all the details.

 

[volsunghawk]

I don't think people hate Manning as much as they hate the excessive coverage he gets from the media.

This

Thing is, though, Manning has EARNED that level of coverage. It's not like he's Tebow or Manziel (or back further, Reggie Bush and Michael Vick), who were also ridiculously hyped by the media and constantly shoved down everyone's throats. Manning's going to be on the very short list of greatest NFL player of all time debate due to his continued excellence over his career. If he had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career, the debate over GOAT NFL QB would be done.

Not really.

Those of us who watched Montana win 4 rings in an NFL that allowed defenses to mug guys would argue that. Even if Peyton was perfect in the Superbowl, he'd still only have three while enjoying protection from the refs that simply didn't exist in the 1980s.

Joe Montana was the definition of clutch. I'm no Whiners fan but any list that puts Manning over Montana would be laughable to me. Manning has just never played at that level. He's never been a clutch guy. His success has always come from building big early leads and playing from that advantage. When he gets behind, he chokes. He choked in his only Superbowl win, throwing a critical late pick that Rex Grossman gave right back to the Colts. That Bears offense was the biggest joke I've ever seen in a Superbowl (outside of the 1980s Broncos) and Manning still struggled mightily and almost lost the game. Joe Cool would just come out and keep doing his thing, methodically wearing down defenses and turning the smallest opportunities into game winning drives. His worst playoff games were better than Manning's best.

It's also absurd to put Manning over Brady. Brady is 20x the qb that Manning has ever been. What he did last season with that rag-tag motley crew of nobodies on offense was far more impressive than the Broncos chucking it every down against vastly inferior defenses, while also having 3 quality starters at RB to keep defenses honest. Brady was dealing with the loss of every impact starter on their offense - both TEs, half their offensive line, and a bunch of no name rookies at receiver with no running game to help out. It's amazing what he did with that team. I'm not sure Montana, Young, Aikman or any of the greats could have done that. Manning would have choked and blamed it on the offensive line.

I'm also with whoever mentioned Otto Graham. Never saw him play live, but did watch a compilation of his championship wins once and came away really impressed. He was just on another level than everyone else. A man playing against boys. Also more rings than anyone and he really did carry his teams.

Never understood the Johnny U thing and just chalked that up to nostalgia. Yeah yeah, I know he was the first modern qb prototype. But look at the career stats - almost 1:1 on TD:INTs, 78 passer rating, 54% pass completion. That wouldn't be good enough to start on a modern Superbowl team. And he had the advantage of surprise, since most teams just ran the ball and pass defense was nothing like today. You put a guy like Brady in the 50s and that would have been hilarious. Even a slow awkward Brady could have scrambled for a handful of TDs per season.

Anyway, GOAT is always a fun chat. Don't see Manning in that group though. I wouldn't even rank him with Aikman, who doesn't get enough credit nowadays for some weird reason.

You do realize that I made sure to include the caveat that if Manning "had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career," right? Manning's struggles in the postseason are well-documented. Some of them can be blamed on playing with a subpar defense in Indy a lot, but he definitely deserves a fair share of the "choker" label that he's gotten in the playoffs. But his regular-season work has been astounding, including multiple comebacks.

As for Brady being "20x the QB," that's ludicrous. I will absolutely agree that Brady is on the short list of GOAT discussion, but he's not clear-cut head and shoulders ahead of Manning. Hell, Brady's track record is not all that dissimilar to Manning's... it's just that he had early success while Manning struggled in the postseason until later in his career. Brady hasn't been impressive in many of his last showings in the postseason, either.

I'll agree that Graham is in the discussion, as well, and I'd probably put him as the leader ahead of everyone right now. Montana was an outstanding playoffs QB, but he was rarely dominant during the regular season, even while benefiting from having the GOAT WR in his prime as a weapon. Aikman? Pssh. Get that shit outta here.

 

[DavidSeven]

Re: Manning,
One thing that stands out to me is after the last snap, Manning walks by every member of the defensive line and LB corp and directly to Kam & Earl to tell them congrats. He then seeks out Russell Wilson, and the rest are Seahawk players walking up to him (i.e. Wagner, Bennett).

I'm not generally one for reading into stuff, but this one seemed to jump out at me that Manning singled those safeties out as a sign of ultimate respect. You can see this at minute 35:00.

Yep. You can see him looking around after the final hand-off and making a bee line for Earl and Kam. You can also tell that Earl and Kam hold him in very high regard. They shake his hand very professionally, like he is the President.

 

[HansGruber]

You do realize that I made sure to include the caveat that if Manning "had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career," right? Manning's struggles in the postseason are well-documented. Some of them can be blamed on playing with a subpar defense in Indy a lot, but he definitely deserves a fair share of the "choker" label that he's gotten in the playoffs. But his regular-season work has been astounding, including multiple comebacks.

As for Brady being "20x the QB," that's ludicrous. I will absolutely agree that Brady is on the short list of GOAT discussion, but he's not clear-cut head and shoulders ahead of Manning. Hell, Brady's track record is not all that dissimilar to Manning's... it's just that he had early success while Manning struggled in the postseason until later in his career. Brady hasn't been impressive in many of his last showings in the postseason, either.

I'll agree that Graham is in the discussion, as well, and I'd probably put him as the leader ahead of everyone right now. Montana was an outstanding playoffs QB, but he was rarely dominant during the regular season, even while benefiting from having the GOAT WR in his prime as a weapon. Aikman? Pssh. Get that shit outta here.

Have a valid point to make about Aikman? Why wouldn't he be in the conversation? He enjoyed great success in college as well as the pros, and you clearly can't assign his NCAA success to his team. The Bruins sucked before and after him. As did the Cowgirls. Aikman was an intelligent quarterback, excellent passer, great touch, and all of his former teammates have spoken to his character and leadership. It's pretty absurd to put Manning and Marino in the discussion, but not Aikman. It's only that way because America hated Jerry Jones and was tired of the money franchises by the early 90s. The Niners had bored America and Aikman received a lot of that hate because to most people, they were just the next franchise to buy titles. But Aikman got it done. Better QB in every possible way than Manning.

Further, Brady and Manning couldn't be further apart when it comes to track record. Brady's postseason record alone speaks to the depth of that chasm. Look it up and get back to me.

As to the poor supporting cast excuse, that's gotta be a joke. Those early Manning Colts were loaded with talent. Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison in their prime all come to mind. All 3 were dominant players, annually in the top 10 of every fantasy draft. You couldn't ask for better support than that. The SB48 Broncos entered the playoffs with the most dominant offense in NFL history, loaded with big name talent that put up gaudy fantasy stats every week. Give Tom Brady that WR corps, a healthy starting TE, or any one of the THREE RBs on Denver's offense and Peyton doesn't make it past the AFCCG (for what, the 6th time? ).

It's a joke that Marino and Manning, for some reason, enjoy this excuse that their teams sucked and that's why they failed in the postseason. In reality, go back and look at the box scores for their failures. You'll find countless game changing turnovers when they tried to gunsling a win and got picked. That's exactly what happened in the 83 playoffs when Seattle beat them in Miami for our first playoff win. The only real exception being that Superbowl Marino lost when he had a great game but his defense gave up a ton of points and yards. I forget which but remember watching it and thinking it was unfortunate because he really did have a great game but his defense sucked.

Manning specifically is at least partially at fault for all those playoff failures. The guy has thrown so many game-changing picks, I don't know how you argue he isn't. The Saints won their only title thanks to a terrible pick 6 that can only be described as a very poor throw from manning.

As to his class, spare me. Manning publicly threw his own offensive line under the bus for one of his biggest failures. Permanently ended that discussion for me. Remind me, when did Aikman ever do that?

 

[volsunghawk]

You do realize that I made sure to include the caveat that if Manning "had the same level of success in the postseason that he's had in the regular season during his career," right? Manning's struggles in the postseason are well-documented. Some of them can be blamed on playing with a subpar defense in Indy a lot, but he definitely deserves a fair share of the "choker" label that he's gotten in the playoffs. But his regular-season work has been astounding, including multiple comebacks.

As for Brady being "20x the QB," that's ludicrous. I will absolutely agree that Brady is on the short list of GOAT discussion, but he's not clear-cut head and shoulders ahead of Manning. Hell, Brady's track record is not all that dissimilar to Manning's... it's just that he had early success while Manning struggled in the postseason until later in his career. Brady hasn't been impressive in many of his last showings in the postseason, either.

I'll agree that Graham is in the discussion, as well, and I'd probably put him as the leader ahead of everyone right now. Montana was an outstanding playoffs QB, but he was rarely dominant during the regular season, even while benefiting from having the GOAT WR in his prime as a weapon. Aikman? Pssh. Get that shit outta here.

Have a valid point to make about Aikman? Why wouldn't he be in the conversation? He enjoyed great success in college as well as the pros, and you clearly can't assign his NCAA success to his team. The Bruins sucked before and after him. As did the Cowgirls. Aikman was an intelligent quarterback, excellent passer, great touch, and all of his former teammates have spoken to his character and leadership. It's pretty absurd to put Manning and Marino in the discussion, but not Aikman. It's only that way because America hated Jerry Jones and was tired of the money franchises by the early 90s. The Niners had bored America and Aikman received a lot of that hate because to most people, they were just the next franchise to buy titles. But Aikman got it done. Better QB in every possible way than Manning.

Who gives a damn about Aikman's college career? In Dallas, Aikman benefited from a dominant O-line, an incredible RB, and some outstanding weapons at WR and TE, and his numbers were still relatively pedestrian for the time. He wasn't a Trent Dilfer by any stretch, but his performance was always more about his surrounding cast.

Further, Brady and Manning couldn't be further apart when it comes to track record. Brady's postseason record alone speaks to the depth of that chasm. Look it up and get back to me.

Yeah, I did. Postseason record is a team stat, not an individual stat. Look at his performances. He peaked in the back-to-back SB championships in '03 and '04. His performances since then have been underwhelming for "the best QB in the league." Check his gamelogs from after that time. You'll find FAR more average looking games than outstanding games. But - AGAIN - note that I'm not lauding Manning for his postseason performances. You seem to have skipped that part again.

As to the poor supporting cast excuse, that's gotta be a joke. Those early Manning Colts were loaded with talent. Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison in their prime all come to mind. All 3 were dominant players, annually in the top 10 of every fantasy draft. You couldn't ask for better support than that. The SB48 Broncos entered the playoffs with the most dominant offense in NFL history, loaded with big name talent that put up gaudy fantasy stats every week. Give Tom Brady that WR corps, a healthy starting TE, or any one of the THREE RBs on Denver's offense and Peyton doesn't make it past the AFCCG (for what, the 6th time? ).

It's a joke that Marino and Manning, for some reason, enjoy this excuse that their teams sucked and that's why they failed in the postseason. In reality, go back and look at the box scores for their failures. You'll find countless game changing turnovers when they tried to gunsling a win and got picked. That's exactly what happened in the 83 playoffs when Seattle beat them in Miami for our first playoff win. The only real exception being that Superbowl Marino lost when he had a great game but his defense gave up a ton of points and yards. I forget which but remember watching it and thinking it was unfortunate because he really did have a great game but his defense sucked.

Manning specifically is at least partially at fault for all those playoff failures. The guy has thrown so many game-changing picks, I don't know how you argue he isn't. The Saints won their only title thanks to a terrible pick 6 that can only be described as a very poor throw from manning.

Yes, Manning is at least partially at fault for those playoff failures. That's why I said so myself. And if you'll pay attention, you'll see that I didn't cast aspersions on the OFFENSIVE players that Manning worked with during his time in Indy. I specifically said "defense." Defense. Defense. Let me know if you need it repeated again.

As to his class, spare me. The guy threw his own offensive line under the bus for one of his biggest failures. Permanently ended that discussion for me. Remind me, when did Aikman ever do that?

Okay, now I realize that I probably shouldn't even bother. Pretty damn clear you've got a bone to pick with Manning. One incident wipes out any and all other times when he has shown class in your book.

 

[HansGruber]

Here's the video. Maybe someone can explain to me how this was the Colts' defense, offensive line, or anyone other than Peyton Manning's fault?

[youtube]JM6I7AjCFAY[/youtube]

And here's the classy Manning throwing his teammates under the bus after his pick-6 cost the Colts the game (same pick shown above, please show me where that was the fault of the O-line as Peyton claims):

[youtube]R1piy8Zxddw[/youtube]


It's also deliciously fitting, in comparisons of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, to remember that the very first time they played each other - Sep 30, 2001 - Peyton Manning threw 3 INTs, two of which were pick-6's.

 

[HansGruber]

Okay, now I realize that I probably shouldn't even bother. Pretty damn clear you've got a bone to pick with Manning. One incident wipes out any and all other times when he has shown class in your book.

Like I said, please show me how the defense cost Peyton Manning the win in SB44. Or just explain to me how anyone but Peyton is at fault for the pick-6 that cost the Colts that game. How is his defense to blame for the repeated poundings they took from the Patriots, even after all the best Patriots defenders had retired? How do you blame his defense for all of his turnovers?

What I have a problem with is selective memory. And your post is the perfect example.

Aikman wasn't dominant in his time? Are you serious??

I'm just going to assume you weren't old enough to watch the games and really follow the NFL in the 90's. I can't think of any quarterbacks who were nearly as dominant in that era. Please name one. Give me a single example of QB greatness that exceeded Aikman in the 1990's.

Troy Aikman won 3 Superbowls in 4 years, went to the Pro Bowl 6 times, and brought the Cowgirls to the playoffs repeatedly in the 90's. His career completion rate was 61%. How is that not a noteworthy career? The only QB I've ever seen lead their team to perennial contention and success like that was Tom Brady. I know Otto Graham did that too, but that was before my time and was certainly a different NFL.

And it's a cop-out to give all of his teammates all the credit. Simple fact: Aikman quarterbacked those teams. He led them to Superbowl wins. Period. Manning hasn't. Period. The rest of your argument is circular self-supporting logic that doesn't hold up. In fact, Manning consistently enjoyed FAR better surrounding talent than Aikman. Are you really going to argue that Michael Irvin alone was better than the 1-2 combo of Harrison and Wayne?

Aikman OWNED the 90's. To argue otherwise is just... bizarre. Sure, the Cowboys defense was good, they were great in 1995. But you really believe they would have enjoyed the same success with Dave Krieg for example? Or Peyton Manning? Aikman didn't make the mistakes. You didn't see him throwing the Manning pick-6's, or throwing away playoffs like Farvre.

Michael Irvin didn't rack up all those mind-boggling stats by throwing himself the ball. Emmitt Smith wasn't running against 8-man fronts EVER because everyone feared Aikman dropping back and throwing the ball. They all 3 give each other credit for being exceptional and making it impossible for defenses to deal with the Cowgirls offense. Deion Sanders has said Troy Aikman was the best passer he ever faced and that's why he went to play with him in 96. Sanders specifically said Aikman had the most accurate pass of any QB he faced, that he was able to place it in tiny windows that made it impossible to defend Irvin who could go up and pick the pass away from triple coverage. And ya know, I kinda take Sanders' word as a little more credible than someone who never saw Aikman play.

And yeah, I'm sure all those Cowgirls fans really wish they could have had a guy like Manning who would put up big regular season stats and fail repeatedly in the playoffs rather than having 3 Superbowls in 4 years. Just ask all the Whiner fans who watched Joe Montana and Steve Young come up short against those Cowgirls. I'm sure they treasure their single Superbowl ring via Steve Young while sitting at home and watching Troy Aikman destroy their team and win 3 of them in 4 years.

 

[bigDhawk]

A completely brilliant video. Where has this been? This puts NFL Films Sound FX to utter shame. Hands down, slam dunk, head and shoulders the best SB XLVIII video I have seen yet. I would pay serious cashmoney to own some sort of official copy of this, but I'll be thankful for the bootleg copy I now have. Big /rec to 253hawk for finding and posting this absolute gem.

 

[volsunghawk]

Aikman wasn't dominant in his time? Are you serious??

I'm just going to assume you weren't old enough to watch the games and really follow the NFL in the 90's. I can't think of any quarterbacks who were nearly as dominant in that era. Please name one. Give me a single example of QB greatness that exceeded Aikman in the 1990s

Tell you what. I'll just respond to the part that wasn't trying to put words in my mouth about Manning.

Steve Young was far and away a better and more accomplished QB than Aikman. I know that because I watched both of them play.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Brad Johnson ended his career with better numbers than Aikman, and he owns a Super Bowl ring. Does that make him better or no?