Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
StHustle

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, StHustle said:


Not a big Steve Young fan?


We all hate Brady and as much as I hate admitting this, it has become easier now that I know his retirement or sharp decline is imminent. But......Brady is the GOAT. Not only the greatest QB of all time but would have to be mentioned with the top overall players of all time. And that couple be considered for sports PERIOD. Not just the NFL.

 

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I think Steve Young is a solid Top 10 QB.  I put Kelly after him, but definitely in the Top 15, like you.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

the Bills lost a few key games they had no business losing and never won a game they shouldn't have won those years

 

Nice take 33. I never thought of it in that context.

 

Sorry, but I was never a huge fan of Levy. He was great at soothing egos and that was important, but I think he left a lot to be desired as a football strategist and I am being kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes 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.

 

I also think Brees is putting himself into the Top 5 conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Nice take 33. I never thought of it in that context.

 

Sorry, but I was never a huge fan of Levy. He was great at soothing egos and that was important, but I think he left a lot to be desired as a football strategist and I am being kind.

 

I think the best part about Levy is that he got out of the way and let Kelly QB. 

 

The worst thing about Levy is that he got out of the way and let Kelly become unfocused when it came to the BIG GAME.

 

IMO

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, no quarterback compares with Unitas.  He was not only an exceptional passer but called his own plays.  And his play calling in situation after situation was so unorthodox that no defense had a clue how to stop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I also think Brees is putting himself into the Top 5 conversation.

 

Completely agree. He's gotten shafted the last two seasons in the playoffs. Could have two or even 3 SB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MJS said:

Kelly should be in the 15-20 range I think. These things always come down to opinion and the particular bias of whoever makes the list, though.

This is where I land also.  So a bit low but close enough to argue at 21.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Any list of that doesn't have Rodgers in the top 3 isn't valid imo. 

 

So you believe that Aaron Rodgers is clearly better than 2 of Unitas/Montana/Brady/Manning?

 

I think that's pushing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

So you believe that Aaron Rodgers is clearly better than 2 of Unitas/Montana/Brady/Manning?

 

I think that's pushing it.

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranking would of been higher if we won that first Super Bowl of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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.

Except in the most important thing, which is winning. If you don't have the rings, you won't get as highly rated.

 

I don't think Rodgers deserves top 5. Might not even deserve top 10 in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MJS said:

Except in the most important thing, which is winning. If you don't have the rings, you won't get as highly rated.

 

I don't think Rodgers deserves top 5. Might not even deserve top 10 in my book.

Wins are a team statistic.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
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....

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...