The debate surrounding Dak Prescott's next contract is one of those great, polarizing topics for the Dallas Cowboys fanbase. I count myself among those who believe that Dallas should give him a long-term deal, and over the next few days I'm going to attack this from a few angles. The first is that you don't have to be the best quarterback to win titles, and that was proven in the 1990s by Troy Aikman.
Before you close this article in disgust, hear me out. And let me be clear; Troy Aikman was the only athlete who ever got his poster on my wall. He was and remains my favorite player of all time.
But looking back, I can admit that Troy wasn't the best QB of the era. Dan Marino was a better passer and Steve Young was a better playmaker.
Aikman was great in his own right, of course. He deserves every bit of the Ring of Honor, Hall of Fame, and every other accolade he ever received. Troy was one of the elite, even if he wasn't the absolute best.
That said, and Aikman would be the first to admit this, he was very fortunate to be part of that loaded Cowboys dynasty. Troy could have won a championship with another team, but he wasn't going to win three. Just ask Marino or Young, who only have one Super Bowl ring between them as starters.
But Aikman did win more. He won more Super Bowls than those two and plenty others; Brees, Elway, Favre, Manning, and more, all of whom would be argued as greater quarterbacks than Troy.
So no, you don't need to be the best QB of your era to win. You just need to be good enough and have the right team around you.
You may think it's sacrilege to even put Prescott and Aikman in the same sentence at this point in Dak's career, but just look at the resume for a second.
In three years so far in the NFL, Dak Prescott has a 32-16 record in the regular season. He has won 66% of those games and never had a single losing season. He's led the Cowboys to the playoffs twice.
Just getting to the playoffs in the NFL is a true accomplishment, unlike some other professional sports. Having a guy who can consistently get you to the tournament is a valuable commodity; he gives you more spins at the wheel with the hope of getting hot and making a run.
True, Prescott's 1-2 record so far in the postseason isn't great. But he's scored seven touchdowns in those games with just two interceptions, and has a total passer rating over 95 in playoff action. Is he really why the Cowboys haven't advanced?
Three years is enough time to say, without question, that Dak Prescott is a winner. He's good enough to win a championship; better than Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, and others who've rode a great team to the Super Bowl.
If you're on the anti-Dak wagon, I get that you want to have the next Tom Brady. A better player improves those championship odds year after year.
But this idea of dumping Dak to chase someone better through the draft is a far greater gamble than sticking with Prescott. You could spend years trying to find an upgrade, and wind up in the same dark ages the Cowboys suffered through between the Troy Aikman and Tony Romo eras.
Come back tomorrow, when I will dive into the history of the quarterback position and the NFL Draft to show just how difficult replacing Dak Prescott could be.