Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.
Everybody loves a winner, and in the 1990s no one knew how to win like the Dallas Cowboys. America’s team was led on their run of dominance by a triumvirate of then future Hall of Famers – Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and Troy Aikman. The first two, Smith and Irvin, are unquestionably one-of-a-kind players that deserve their status as NFL icons. But Aikman? That’s a different story.
Aikman does not deserve the hallowed status of Hall of Famer because although he won games as a starter, he often wasn’t the best player on the field or even his own team. I am reminded of a scene from the end of Rocky 3 when Apollo Creed tells Rocky Balboa, “You fight great, but I’m a great fighter.” There is indeed a difference. At times Troy Aikman could play football great, but he was not a great football player. His sometimes mediocre stats are evidence of that. Aikman’s completion percentage (61.5 percent) and passer rating (81.6) do not exactly set the world on fire. Add to that the fact that he had a winning percentage just above .500 and his legend is diminished further. If the stats are just so-so, it is fair to be asking the question, “Why is Troy Aikman in the Pro Football Hall of Fame?”
At first glance, Troy Aikman’s career is marked by numerous accomplishments, not the least of which is three Super Bowl wins. He was selected to six consecutive Pro Bowls from 1991 to 1996 and won Super Bowl MVP honors in 1992. These accolades alone would lead one to believe that Aikman deserves his spot in the Hall of Fame, but each and every one of these accolades was dependent on the surrounding cast which made it all possible. Instead of Aikman making the cast better, the cast made Aikman.
It is only logical that a quarterback would be successful provided he is surrounded by great talent. Certainly there was no one more talented in the backfield during the early 1990s than Emmitt Smith. He broke nearly ever rushing record there was in route to his position as the all-time rushing leader in NFL history. It is because of Smith’s overwhelming success that Aikman was also able to succeed. The Cowboys ground game opened up huge opportunities for the passing game. As Emmitt Smith ran wild in Big D, opposing defenses had to game plan for how to deal with a seemingly unstoppable rushing attack, and Aikman reaped the benefits.
<br
Aikman was also assisted by throwing to an elite reliever in Michael Irvin, ”The Playmaker.” Irvin, a five time Pro Bowler himself, helped make Aikman look good. With 750 career receptions for 11,904 yards and 65 receiving scores, Irvin still ranks in the upper echelon of receivers today. In the same way Smith improved Aikman’s effectiveness, Irvin helped Aikman to lead the Cowboys to win after win. But Smith and Irvin have something that Aikman doesn’t have – statistical dominance.
The major knock on Irvin’s legacy is the fact that even surrounded by great players in Dallas he quite frankly failed to post mind blowing stats. Looking back on his career, Aikman’s best years draw comparison to players like Joe Montana, Drew Brees, and Steve McNair, but stopping the comparison there would not tell the whole story. Looking at Aikman’s career as a whole, there are plenty of less flattering comparisons to players like Mark Brunell, Donovan McNabb, and Joe Namath. All talented players, no doubt, but certainly not the greatest QBs of all time (Namath’s case is so shaky that Loyal Homer has chosen to question his Hall credentials).
Simply being on a winning team does not necessarily prove to be a direct representation of greatness. Aikman was a capable signal caller who managed games effectively, but crediting him as the driving force behind the Cowboys’ dynasty of the early 1990s is a bit farfetched. Had Aikman played for another team he probably would not have three Super Bowl rings, without which he might not have entered the Hall of Fame discussion at all. His sometimes pedestrian numbers undermine his Hall of Fame worthiness.
Posted by Babe Ruthless 
The What Makes A Better In-Game Analyst Debate – The Verdict
August 6, 2009Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument that a trained broadcaster with no playing experience is better, and Loyal Homer’s argument that a former player with no formal broadcasting experience is better.
History can often serve as the best teacher.
In a question like the one discussed by Sports Geek and Loyal Homer, where separate qualities are compared to evaluate which makes for a better result, there will be both positive and negative examples for each side. While those examples serve as evidence for specific incidents of success or failure, it is also important not to lose sight of the larger picture.
There is no set formula for steps which must be followed in order to become a successful broadcaster. The traits that make one person a successful broadcaster could very well ruin another broadcaster’s career. The most important factor that makes a broadcaster “successful” – regardless of their background – is that they sound comfortable and intelligent when they speak. I contest that whenever a broadcaster is perceived as being poor in their role, it is because they lack the appearance of comfort or intelligence with regard to the topic.
As I read the arguments by both Loyal Homer and Sports Geek, the question I kept asking myself was… “What background type would generally make someone appear to be more comfortable and knowledgeable in what they were discussing?”
To put it differently, I approached this as one of those ‘Street-Smarts’ vs. ‘Book-Smarts’ debates.
In order to answer that question, I looked again at the examples provided on both sides of the debate.
Sports Geek provided several examples of in-game analysts who have failed for BOTH sides (citing Joe Theismann and Joe Morgan as former players, and Dennis Miller and Steve Phillips as non-athletes). When the pressure was on to highlight the non-players who were successful in their role, though, the only example provided was Tony Kornheiser. Even Kornheiser as a positive example can be challenged to some degree because he has not sustained that success. He spent two years in the booth and has since been replaced. Regardless of the reason for his replacement, there is no long term evidence of success.
Loyal Homer, on the other hand, brought up Don Sutton and Troy Aikman – both of whom have made successful transitions into broadcasting as in-game analysts. Other names, like Bob Griese and Phil Simms, also come to mind as former athletes who became very successful and well-regarded as in-game analysts.
To quote Sports Geek (who gave us that permission), “The traits of a good sports analyst are not exclusive to those with playing experience.” That is a very true statement. However, history has proven that those with previous playing experience seem to have a greater likelihood for success as in-game analysts for broadcasting. After reading Loyal Homer’s argument, I am led to believe that the former athlete’s ability to speak from a perspective of “been there, done that” when providing in-game analysis gives credibility to their statements, making them appear more comfortable and knowledgeable (on average) than their non-playing counterparts.
Winner – Loyal Homer