Bills14 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) I was kind of shocked to see Jim Kelly's career numbers but the strange thing is they are almost the same or WORSE every year of his career aside from a couple standout years than Fitzpatricks numbers this year. And considering Fitz sat out 3 games im pretty sure its not because the bills always had big leads and Kelly played less than Fitz. And NO i dont think Fitz is as good as Kelly but how bad could he really be if he could replicate Kelly's numbers consistantly? http://www.nfl.com/players/jimkelly/profile?id=KEL581385 Edited January 7, 2011 by Bills14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwolf02 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 It's been mentioned a couple times that Kelly played in a much different era. Those stats were near the top of the league at the time while Fitzys are below the median. But, I love Fitzy so I'm not trying to argue if he's a decent QB or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Yeah - Kelly was also never a numbers guy. He was efficient, he was a leader, and he played best under pressure. But he left the stats to Dan Marino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I've said it before ... I see a lot of Kelly in Fitz's style of play. I don't know if Fitz will have the success that Kelly did over his career, but I do know that once again I enjoy watching our QB playing the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Everything is colored by context. Kelly was a #1 pick and led a winning team so whatever he did is considered good. Fitz came to Buffalo unheralded and leads a losing team so the same numbers look bad. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I was kind of shocked to see Jim Kelly's career numbers but the strange thing is they are almost the same or WORSE every year of his career aside from a couple standout years than Fitzpatricks numbers this year. And considering Fitz sat out 3 games im pretty sure its not because the bills always had big leads and Kelly played less than Fitz. And NO i dont think Fitz is as good as Kelly but how bad could he really be if he could replicate Kelly's numbers consistantly? http://www.nfl.com/players/jimkelly/profile?id=KEL581385 I've been telling people for years that QB stats are worthless. Thanks for proving my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I was kind of shocked to see Jim Kelly's career numbers but the strange thing is they are almost the same or WORSE every year of his career aside from a couple standout years than Fitzpatricks numbers this year. And considering Fitz sat out 3 games im pretty sure its not because the bills always had big leads and Kelly played less than Fitz. And NO i dont think Fitz is as good as Kelly but how bad could he really be if he could replicate Kelly's numbers consistantly? http://www.nfl.com/players/jimkelly/profile?id=KEL581385 I love Fitzpatrick, but you are comparing one season from him, verses eleven from Kelly. Then, you say "aside from a couple of standout years"...so, in effect, you are saying "take away all the good years Kelly had, then he was no better than Fitzpatrick." I know, you are not trying to say that Fitzpatrick is better than Kelly was, but, as others have stated, Kelly's teams were far different (and better all the way around) than Fitz' team was, this year. Gaily pretty much relied on Fitz for everything this season, and he did pretty well. Kelly, with the exception of a few games every year, was rarely relied on, solely, to move the offense. He had a HOF running back that saw the ball a lot more, consistently, than Jackson, Spiller or Lynch did. Perhaps the biggest difference between the "golden era" Bills teams, offensively, more often than not, they were dictating the game to the defense...Fitz teams were always the underdogs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Everything is colored by context. Kelly was a #1 pick and led a winning team so whatever he did is considered good. Fitz came to Buffalo unheralded and leads a losing team so the same numbers look bad. PTR That is totally ridiculous and untrue. The two most important numbers for a QB are Wins and completion percentage. Kelly absolutely crushes Fitz in both those categories regardless of where they were drafted. the difference between %58 completion percentage and %60 is HUGE. And in his prime years, Kelly was well over %60 -- something Fitz has yet to accomplish. Factor in the truth that the league was different in the 90s than it was today -- read: it was HARDER to pass in the NFL when Kelly played because the rules of the sport were vastly different -- and it makes the comparison of Kelly to Fitz even more ridiculous. Where a player is drafted has nothing to do with how good they are. Brady was a 6th round pick and is the best QB ever to play the game. Fitz isn't a franchise QB because he doesn't have the abilities to be one -- not because of where he comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Everything is colored by context. Kelly was a #1 pick and led a winning team so whatever he did is considered good. Fitz came to Buffalo unheralded and leads a losing team so the same numbers look bad. PTR Fitz has yet to show that he can beat a good team. Every time they played a good team, he found ways to lose the game. Kelly on the other hand was at his best under pressure. He consistently beat Marino and Elway in head to head matchups. Numbers don't tell the whole story. They are just statistics. What counts is the ability to win football games. Kelly had it, Fitz does not. He is a step up over Trent Edwards, but that ain't saying much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Stats are misleading in nature and you are being mislead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beebe's Kid Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Fitzy has not earned the right to be mentioned alongside Kelly, but some of you guys are !@#$ing ridiculous. We drafted Kelly, and he took two years to get here...playing professional ball...and went 4-12. 4 and !@#$ing 12. Jim is a legend, and my all time favorite player, but everybody seems to forget that it wasn't his first or second year here that we were good. We were decent the third, and digressed the fourth. Then the magic started. "We need out next Jim Kelly," is the piss and moan every day/week/month/year... the fans, coaches, FO, and ownership have not been patient enough to ever get a "franchise" guy. As long as you keep expecting the quick fix, and are not willing to wait on a guy, you can continue to be disappointed and upset, and telling everybody how much you know on message boards, but we'll still not have a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills(70) Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Yeah - Kelly was also never a numbers guy. He was efficient, he was a leader, and he played best under pressure. But he left the stats to Dan Marino. Ah yes, the class of 83'. Without a doubt the best class in the NFL draft history. Great names came out of that class, Elway, Kelly and Marino. There were other positions as well, but as QB's go, it's hard to see the same draft class impact that those names had. Especially Elway and Marino. Kelly had a great run with the Bills, no doubt, but Marino transformed the game and Elway transformed how fans preceived the quintessential leader on the field as a general. Great days back then, and I miss those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Fitz has yet to show that he can beat a good team. Every time they played a good team, he found ways to lose the game. Kelly on the other hand was at his best under pressure. He consistently beat Marino and Elway in head to head matchups. Numbers don't tell the whole story. They are just statistics. What counts is the ability to win football games. Kelly had it, Fitz does not. He is a step up over Trent Edwards, but that ain't saying much. Like missing a field goal or dropping a sure TD pass or allowing 200+ rushing yards or giving up 35+ points? PTR Edited January 7, 2011 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabden Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Fitz has yet to show that he can beat a good team. Every time they played a good team, he found ways to lose the game. Kelly on the other hand was at his best under pressure. He consistently beat Marino and Elway in head to head matchups. Numbers don't tell the whole story. They are just statistics. What counts is the ability to win football games. Kelly had it, Fitz does not. He is a step up over Trent Edwards, but that ain't saying much. BS! The Buffalo Bills, with Kelly at QB, had PLAYMAKERS on their team. Bruce Smith, Phil Hansen Daryl Talley, Biscuit, Shane Conlin, Andra Reed, James Loften, Pete Metzalars,Steve Tasker, Thurman Thomas, and an OL to die for. Who are those PLAYMAKERS on the current roster? I like Fitz, is he Kelly? No, but given the lack of talent surrounding him, you can't compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 At the end of the day, the only stat that matters is Wins vs. Losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 At the end of the day, the only stat that matters is Wins vs. Losses. Correct. And to suggest one position alone determines this is ludicrous. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Like missing a field goal or dropping a sure TD pass or allowing 200+ rushing yards or giving up 35+ points? PTR I know what a choke artist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Correct. And to suggest one position alone determines this is ludicrous. PTR Arizona Cardinals 2009 Warner QB Arizona Cardinals 2010 ? QB Atlanta Falcons with Vick Atlanta Falcons 1st year without Vick Atlanta Falcons with Matt Ryan Baltimore Ravens with Kyle Boller Baltimore Ravens with Joe Flacco Miami Dolphins 2007 no QB 1-15 Miami Dolphins Pennington in a healthy 2008-division winner The difference between having a QB & not having one is HUGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Actually I think that was one of Kelly's weaknesses, he tried to do too much. I've said it for the past 20 years, in the first SB agaisnt the Giants, if Kelly had given the ball more to Thomas, I'm certain we'd have won that one. Gaily pretty much relied on Fitz for everything this season, and he did pretty well. Kelly, with the exception of a few games every year, was rarely relied on, solely, to move the offense. He had a HOF running back that saw the ball a lot more, consistently, than Jackson, Spiller or Lynch did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Arizona Cardinals 2009 Warner QB Arizona Cardinals 2010 ? QB Atlanta Falcons with Vick Atlanta Falcons 1st year without Vick Atlanta Falcons with Matt Ryan Baltimore Ravens with Kyle Boller Baltimore Ravens with Joe Flacco Miami Dolphins 2007 no QB 1-15 Miami Dolphins Pennington in a healthy 2008-division winner The difference between having a QB & not having one is HUGE! True. But the earlier point was that the supporting cast on offense and defense is also important. A QB can't win the game by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts