Mango Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I would disagree with Jim on the QBs thing. Seems to me the QBs are possibly better than they've ever been. Brady Manning Manning Rothlisberger Brees Rivers Newton Luck Schaub Romo Ryan That's pretty close to 50% of the QBs being elite enough that Jim wouldn't even be on that list during his days. Heck, even Fitz threw right around Jims career year stats last year. It's another topic I guess, just wanted to stress my dissagreement with the HOFer. Thanks BBIA. Any other info? WOW! 3 of those could be brought up in conversation for some of the top 5 of all time, if not better. Where does old Jimbo fall on that list of current QB's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I would disagree with Jim on the QBs thing. Seems to me the QBs are possibly better than they've ever been. Brady Manning Manning Rothlisberger Brees Rivers Newton Luck Schaub Romo Ryan That's pretty close to 50% of the QBs being elite enough that Jim wouldn't even be on that list during his days. Heck, even Fitz threw right around Jims career year stats last year. It A player that hasn't even taken one regular season snap has no business being on this list. Romo hasn't done anything. I think the list ends after Brees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I would disagree with Jim on the QBs thing. Seems to me the QBs are possibly better than they've ever been. Brady Manning Manning Rothlisberger Brees Rivers Newton Luck Schaub Romo Ryan That's pretty close to 50% of the QBs being elite enough that Jim wouldn't even be on that list during his days. Heck, even Fitz threw right around Jims career year stats last year. It's another topic I guess, just wanted to stress my dissagreement with the HOFer. Thanks BBIA. Any other info? Quarterbacks today have all the rules catering to them. When Jim Kelly played, wide receivers actually had to fight off the line of scrimmage to get open. Cornerbacks were allowed to use bump and run coverage. There was none of this illegal contact crap. Want some proof? Just look at one of today's "elite" Hall of Fame quarterbacks (who some are now calling the best ever). He has spent his ENTIRE career throwing 90% of his passes to slot receivers and tight ends. His claim to fame is throwing the ball 5-7 yards over the middle and watching his receivers to the rest of the work. Do you honestly think that DINK and DUNK garbage would have been successful in the NFL twenty years ago? Not a chance. Half of the guys on your list would have been BELOW average in Kelly's era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Quarterbacks today have all the rules catering to them. When Jim Kelly played, wide receivers actually had to fight off the line of scrimmage to get open. Cornerbacks were allowed to use bump and run coverage. There was none of this illegal contact crap. Want some proof? Just look at one of today's "elite" Hall of Fame quarterbacks (who some are now calling the best ever). He has spent his ENTIRE career throwing 90% of his passes to slot receivers and tight ends. His claim to fame is throwing the ball 5-7 yards over the middle and watching his receivers to the rest of the work. Do you honestly think that DINK and DUNK garbage would have been successful in the NFL twenty years ago? Not a chance. Half of the guys on your list would have been BELOW average in Kelly's era. ^^this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Quarterbacks today have all the rules catering to them. When Jim Kelly played, wide receivers actually had to fight off the line of scrimmage to get open. Cornerbacks were allowed to use bump and run coverage. There was none of this illegal contact crap. Want some proof? Just look at one of today's "elite" Hall of Fame quarterbacks (who some are now calling the best ever). He has spent his ENTIRE career throwing 90% of his passes to slot receivers and tight ends. His claim to fame is throwing the ball 5-7 yards over the middle and watching his receivers to the rest of the work. Do you honestly think that DINK and DUNK garbage would have been successful in the NFL twenty years ago? Not a chance. Half of the guys on your list would have been BELOW average in Kelly's era. So what accounts for this lack of qb talent? The games more popular than ever. Shouldn't it be getting the cream of the crop athletes funneled it's direction, coupled with athletes in general being bigger/faster/stronger in general, and better coaching, trainers (sports science in general) etc.... The rules favor them today but almost any metric predicting volume of talent in the pool points towards an increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Threads like this make me sad to be a Bills fan.... We're really going to do the whole Fitz>Kelly? thing now? Are you freaking serious? In that case, since we're going on stats from 20+ years apart, John Kitna > Kelly. When exactly did Jim Kelly have back to back 4,000 yard seasons? That's right. NEVER. John Kitna did it for the Lions! Go look it up if you don't beleive it. So HECK, I guess that takes a lot away from Kelly.... The lack of knowledge when it comes to football history is stunning. The guy who does the "heck Fitz threw for Kelly's numbers" schtick lists the "elite" QBs from Kelly's day and leaves out one of the best of them all: John freaking Elway! I think that says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I would disagree with Jim on the QBs thing. Seems to me the QBs are possibly better than they've ever been. Brady Manning Manning Rothlisberger Brees Rivers Newton Luck Schaub Romo Ryan That's pretty close to 50% of the QBs being elite enough that Jim wouldn't even be on that list during his days. Heck, even Fitz threw right around Jims career year stats last year. It's another topic I guess, just wanted to stress my dissagreement with the HOFer. Thanks BBIA. Any other info? Please, Fitz isn't even on the same planet as Jim and with today"s rules would be in the top 3 QBs in the league. Man, what we could do with a 30 year old Kelly, 28 year old Reed and 25 year old Thurman in today's NFL. This Quarterbacks today have all the rules catering to them. When Jim Kelly played, wide receivers actually had to fight off the line of scrimmage to get open. Cornerbacks were allowed to use bump and run coverage. There was none of this illegal contact crap. Want some proof? Just look at one of today's "elite" Hall of Fame quarterbacks (who some are now calling the best ever). He has spent his ENTIRE career throwing 90% of his passes to slot receivers and tight ends. His claim to fame is throwing the ball 5-7 yards over the middle and watching his receivers to the rest of the work. Do you honestly think that DINK and DUNK garbage would have been successful in the NFL twenty years ago? Not a chance. Half of the guys on your list would have been BELOW average in Kelly's era. It did, it is called the west coast offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffBill Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Nah, not really. They are looking for Andrew Luck. Less so for RG3. They may run occasionally, but the prototypical NFL QB is still Rodgers/Brady/both Mannings/Rivers/Big Ben. Brees is the only one who runs around more than a little bit, but he's no Mike Vick. So Kelly's still not making any sense. Sorry eball. I disagree, there are alot more mobile type QBs in the league now that are successful then the traditional pocket passers like Luck. Back when Kelly played there were what, 1 or 2 at most (Cunningham, and who?) And as far as what eball said, he was correct, whether you agree with what Kelly said or not, he still didn't say what the OP stated, so it was taken out of context. Edited September 6, 2012 by BuffBill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts