Jump to content

NFL.com ranks Top 25 QB's of All Time: Jim Kelly #21


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Wins are a team statistic.

Everything is a team metric. Literally everything.

 

And you're forgetting that efficiency metrics don't account for the changes in rules. Rodgers plays in an era where defenders can't make any contact whatsoever to receivers and where QB's are hyper protected. It isn't fair to previous era QB's to compare his numbers to theirs. That's why I think winning is the most important thing to look at.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think #21 is just about right for Kelly, despite all of the discussion about scheme, other QB's, etc. 

 

We've seen QB play evolve quite a bit in the 23 years since Kelly retired.  Accuracy, athleticism, reliance on the passing game - these are areas that have all flourished in the modern game.  Yes, Kelly gets high marks for his toughness, and how he managed the offense.  I've watched a lot of the old games on YouTube over the past year, and he definitely stands out in both regards.  He definitely stood out in many games against a lot of average to terrible QB's.  Our Bills during that time were often head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent level.  But when we didn't have the talent (or in many cases when what we had was older and slower), Kelly was often mediocre.  Yes, he lost many years to the USFL, and being on untalented or poorly coached/schemed Bills teams.  But his peak of excellence wasn't that long, and his deficiencies stand out more and more in comparison to today's game.  

 

Again, a lot of this is apples & oranges, but I don't think the rating is too far off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Yes, clearly. He's first in ANY/A (the purest QB metric IMO), first in passer rating, first (this era) in TD%, first in INT%. You can easily argue he's the best QB of all time.

 

And Tony Romo is top 5 in all of those categories; is he a top-5 all-time QB?

 

I think Rodgers is great. I also think that, despite all of his ability, he simply doesn't win the way the others do. Compare him to Brady and Manning; the other two nearly double his playoff games started, game-winning drives, and comeback wins. They've each thrown for 50 touchdowns in a season. They've each thrown for over 5,000 yards; Rodgers hasn't even come close.

 

Rodgers is a sub-0.500 QB on the road for his career.  Montana, Brady, and Manning have career win percentages on the road of 68%, 64%, and 68%, respectively.

 

I'm not saying he's not an all-time great; he probably deserves to be a top-10 guy.  I mean, think about how many QBs have played in the NFL; I have him in my top 16 of all time.  I'm just saying that he's not one of the 4 greatest ever to play is all.

 

I guess I would ask this: of the top 4 that I listed, who does he replace?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

And Tony Romo is top 5 in all of those categories; is he a top-5 all-time QB?

 

I think Rodgers is great. I also think that, despite all of his ability, he simply doesn't win the way the others do. Compare him to Brady and Manning; the other two nearly double his playoff games started, game-winning drives, and comeback wins. They've each thrown for 50 touchdowns in a season. They've each thrown for over 5,000 yards; Rodgers hasn't even come close.

 

Rodgers is a sub-0.500 QB on the road for his career.  Montana, Brady, and Manning have career win percentages on the road of 68%, 64%, and 68%, respectively.

 

I'm not saying he's not an all-time great; he probably deserves to be a top-10 guy.  I mean, think about how many QBs have played in the NFL; I have him in my top 16 of all time.  I'm just saying that he's not one of the 4 greatest ever to play is all.

 

I guess I would ask this: of the top 4 that I listed, who does he replace?

 

I agree with everything you say but allow me to counter and play devils advocate if I may.

 

What are we saying defines “Greatest QB to Ever Play”? Are we saying stats that define the position of QB make up the decision or are we saying wins, which one could argue are a team metric, make up that decision? Because as far as passers of the ball, there are none better than Rodgers. Is he the best leader? No. But then is that what defines a great QB? You could also argue the Packers wasted many years of Rogers career and he certainly hasn’t benefited from having one of the greatest coaches of all time there in GB. Both Montana/Brady have had better coaches surrounding them.

 

It seems as though it’s a case by case bases where we define some QBs by their stats and others by their ability to win. It also seems as if it’s only the QB position that we do this with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

I agree with everything you say but allow me to counter and play devils advocate if I may.

 

What are we saying defines “Greatest QB to Ever Play”? Are we saying stats that define the position of QB make up the decision or are we saying wins, which one could argue are a team metric, make up that decision? Because as far as passers of the ball, there are none better than Rodgers. Is he the best leader? No. But then is that what defines a great QB? You could also argue the Packers wasted many years of Rogers career and he certainly hasn’t benefited from having one of the greatest coaches of all time there in GB. Both Montana/Brady have had better coaches surrounding them.

 

It seems as though it’s a case by case bases where we define some QBs by their stats and others by their ability to win. It also seems as if it’s only the QB position that we do this with.

 

Your point is fair, and it's not lost on me.

 

I would say that it's a balance between individual passing metrics, ability to win, leadership, and the good old fashioned eye test.  For me, the greatest of all time tier should check all 4 boxes in near unanimous fashion.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Your point is fair, and it's not lost on me.

 

I would say that it's a balance between individual passing metrics, ability to win, leadership, and the good old fashioned eye test.  For me, the greatest of all time tier should check all 4 boxes in near unanimous fashion.

 

I agree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Houston's #1 Bills Fan said:

You're entire post gets negated by this statement. Look, I hate Brady as much as the next Bills fan, but you have to recognize his talents. He truly is one of the best to play the game.

 

Without Billicheat, illegal supplier,  monkey business in stadium and Director of Spying Br*dy accomplishments will always have an asterisk next to them by anyone being fair.

 

I have heard the justification - they are so good that cheating does not matter - but that is just WEO talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

 

And Tony Romo is top 5 in all of those categories; is he a top-5 all-time QB?

 

I think Rodgers is great. I also think that, despite all of his ability, he simply doesn't win the way the others do. Compare him to Brady and Manning; the other two nearly double his playoff games started, game-winning drives, and comeback wins. They've each thrown for 50 touchdowns in a season. They've each thrown for over 5,000 yards; Rodgers hasn't even come close.

 

Rodgers is a sub-0.500 QB on the road for his career.  Montana, Brady, and Manning have career win percentages on the road of 68%, 64%, and 68%, respectively.

 

I'm not saying he's not an all-time great; he probably deserves to be a top-10 guy.  I mean, think about how many QBs have played in the NFL; I have him in my top 16 of all time.  I'm just saying that he's not one of the 4 greatest ever to play is all.

 

I guess I would ask this: of the top 4 that I listed, who does he replace?

Romo is criminally underrated, yes. Wilson gets listed because of his Super Bowl appearances, but those were due just as much to LoB so they’re clearly weighing his metrics pretty highly, in which case Rodgers should be #1 by a mile. 

 

He replaces any of the four. Probably most easily Manning.

1 hour ago, MJS said:

Everything is a team metric. Literally everything.

 

And you're forgetting that efficiency metrics don't account for the changes in rules. Rodgers plays in an era where defenders can't make any contact whatsoever to receivers and where QB's are hyper protected. It isn't fair to previous era QB's to compare his numbers to theirs. That's why I think winning is the most important thing to look at.

Wins are listed under the ‘team’ category of statistics. QB stats, like the ones I mentioned, are listed for quarterbacks. There’s a difference.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

 

 

I like Steve Young, but on a per-game basis Jim was the superior QB.

http://pfref.com/tiny/02C2S

 

I think young is in the next tier.

 

 

...think that between Kelly and Levy, oh fer four is unacceptable.......learn from your mistakes collectively be it personnel and/or preparatory coaching......Young/Walsh did not have that problem IMO....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Romo is criminally underrated, yes. Wilson gets listed because of his Super Bowl appearances, but those were due just as much to LoB so they’re clearly weighing his metrics pretty highly, in which case Rodgers should be #1 by a mile. 

 

He replaces any of the four. Probably most easily Manning.

Wins are listed under the ‘team’ category of statistics. QB stats, like the ones I mentioned, are listed for quarterbacks. There’s a difference.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I would bet that it would be close to unanimous among current and former HCs in favor of Manning over Rodgers.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ALLEN1QB said:

Stupid list Aikman doesn't belong in the top 25 for sure. I would take Jim Kelly over Ben Roethlisberger any day of the week John Elway no way he's that high. Brady is a douchebag would not be on my top 25 list. Cool Joe Montana will always be greatest of all-time in my book

Brady wouldn’t crack my top 25 either. Rode the coattails of the Bellicheck system where cheating was arguably the biggest component of their success. There are hundreds of QBs in NFL history who could have done what Brady did on that team, with Matt Cassell and Jimmy Garoppolo being two of them.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Troll Toll said:

Brady wouldn’t crack my top 25 either. Rode the coattails of the Bellicheck system where cheating was arguably the biggest component of their success. There are hundreds of QBs in NFL history who could have done what Brady did on that team, with Matt Cassell and Jimmy Garoppolo being two of them.

 

This is silly.  Borderline cute, really.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Wins are a team statistic.

 

And QB is by far the most important player in determining winning and losing, and is the most important position in any sport. A QB can't win by himself, but good QBs elevate their team.

 

1 minute ago, Troll Toll said:

Brady wouldn’t crack my top 25 either. Rode the coattails of the Bellicheck system where cheating was arguably the biggest component of their success. There are hundreds of QBs in NFL history who could have done what Brady did on that team, with Matt Cassell and Jimmy Garoppolo being two of them.

 

Anyone who says Brady isn't a top 25 QB is a fool.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Troll Toll said:

 

Put Brady on the Bills for his career and he doesn’t avoid the drought. He likely would have been out of the NFL by 2005.

 

You are just ADORABLE!!  I want to squeeze your cheeks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Maybe it's just me, but I would bet that it would be close to unanimous among current and former HCs in favor of Manning over Rodgers.

Probably. But  to be fair I think a lot of that would be the ‘field general’ hype around Manning and the questions about Rodgers’ personality quirks.

 

Where the Manning argument gets some cred w me is that we’ve witnessed his whole career, downslide and all, whereas Rodgers is still pretty much in his prime. That’s valid. But wins and such...meh. Leaving aside the fact that one of the knocks against Manning was precisely his ability to win in the postseason, I’d argue he benefitted from better teams/coaching over Rodgers, not to mention the added QB-specific premium playing in a dome affords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

I think that's a bit low for Kelly.  I've become accustomed to calling him a top-15 QB.

 

But so much of it is subjective.

 

I think there's an unquestioned top 4 of (in no particular order) Unitas, Montana, Brady, Manning.  After that there's a HUGE chasm before you get to the next tier of 10-12 that includes, IMO: Elway, Marino, Kelly, Aikman, Favre, Brees, and Graham.  I can see an argument for Bradshaw based upon Super Bowl wins, so throw him in there as well.  Same goes for Big Ben.  I think recency-bias is weighing too much when I see names like Rodgers, Wilson, and Warner in there, but if you add those dudes in there, then there's your group of 12.

 

So I suppose I'd say there's a top-4, a top-16, and after that it's highly debatable.

Elway and Brees are easily top 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Troll Toll said:

Brady wouldn’t crack my top 25 either. Rode the coattails of the Bellicheck system where cheating was arguably the biggest component of their success. There are hundreds of QBs in NFL history who could have done what Brady did on that team, with Matt Cassell and Jimmy Garoppolo being two of them.

Wow...our scouting is much worse than I thought.....

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly wins 1 super bowl you could put him probably up to 15. Right behind Aikman....

 

Phillip Rivers ever wins a Super Bowl you can slide him into the top 20...

 

This list is set off Super Bowl wins... Bradshaw was terrible skill wise but because he had 5 HOF players on each side of the ball plus all the Super Bowls he’s selected high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jethro_tull said:

JK was as good a passer as any of them and a better leader than all of them.  Where he fell short was game management- he was just a little stubborn and would try to force things by sheer will power when he should not have against the better defenses.  No better example than Super Bowl  XXV.  

As far as ranking in the list - definitely top 10.  

He was as tough as nails but I am sure that he would readily admit that he should have taken better care of himself.

 

And do let me add that I am NOT judging him. Who knows how I would have acted having been in his situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...