Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Any thread that starts with "My cousin thinks..." is bound to be glorious.

 

it has amusing nutritional value at the very least

 

it's sure as hell beats "I've spent 367 days perfecting this spreadsheet on stats that nobody has thought of"

 

[um... yes they have, millions of people like you....]

 

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, steven50 said:

 

100% agree.

Comparing quarterbacks now to quarterbacks in the past is impossible. The rule changes have been very slanted towards the offense and blowing on a QB hard now will get you a flag.

 

so i can stop hearing how Namath was horrible because the AFL of his day encouraged bombs at the expense of INTs?

 

 

Guest K-GunJimKelly12
Posted

Brady is better than Kelly was but, as I stated in the Brady not greatest of all-time thread, I wholeheartedly believe that Brady would not have had the success in the 80's and 90's that he did today.  I think Montana or Marino in this Era would be as successful as Brady.  I don't think Brady is the clear cut number 1. 

Posted

I don't think you could make a case that Kelly is better than Brady but I think you could for Montana, Unitas, Marino and maybe Elway.

Posted
12 hours ago, NewEra said:

Yet, he IS the conversation.  He’s discussed by anyone that knows anyone about football as the best or if not the best, he’s in the conversation.  Every time.

 

 

giphy.gif

 

He's not in the conversation because he's not even a football player, just a kitty who throws a ball.

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

The bolded is a very interesting perspective. I think that Brady has the talent to have got rid of the ball on time in those days, no problem at all. I do however think that he would have been beaten half to death by late hits. Players must pay these hefty fines themselves now so the late hits are less common.

Today, receivers own the middle. Jack Tatum, Steve Atwater, Ronnie Lott, etc. owned it back in the day and that makes a huge difference.

 

I do however respectfully disagree about Marino being the best of all time.

I disagree. They did throw flags for late hits in the 80’s and 90’s. The legitimate hits ( which included shots to the chin with the helmet that were rarely if ever called) were a heck of a lot more vicious . There was no “ Brady rule” , the strike zone for a hitting a QB was much bigger and grounding wasn’t legalized until ‘93. NFL teams ran different style passing games, and as you wisely pointed out the middle of the field wasn’t for everybody. QB concussions were probably a lot more common. Brady’s career would have been a lot shorter. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, K-GunJimKelly12 said:

Brady is better than Kelly was but, as I stated in the Brady not greatest of all-time thread, I wholeheartedly believe that Brady would not have had the success in the 80's and 90's that he did today.  I think Montana or Marino in this Era would be as successful as Brady.  I don't think Brady is the clear cut number 1. 

Except for Montana and Bradshaw, has anyone played at such a high level in important games as Brady? In any era? 

Posted
4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

The bolded is a very interesting perspective. I think that Brady has the talent to have got rid of the ball on time in those days, no problem at all. I do however think that he would have been beaten half to death by late hits. Players must pay these hefty fines themselves now so the late hits are less common.

Today, receivers own the middle. Jack Tatum, Steve Atwater, Ronnie Lott, etc. owned it back in the day and that makes a huge difference.

 

I do however respectfully disagree about Marino being the best of all time.

How many HoF skill players around him.

Posted

This is a thread that would only exist on a Bills board.  Those Bills teams had way more talented than those Pats teams.  Kelly was surrounded by HOFers. Minus Moss, Brady played with a bunch of Jags.  Also check Kelly’s postseason stats.  He kinda sucked in big games.  Brady just lost a SB where he passed for 400 yards.  Also if Kelly didn’t force throws in the 1st SB and just ran Thurman against a 2 man front, that game doesn’t come down to that kick.

 

im glad Kelly is recovering and has become a better man.  He’s the best Bills qb ever but isn’t even in the same conversation as Brady, who is a whiny tool but the best ever.

Posted
33 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

This is a thread that would only exist on a Bills board.  Those Bills teams had way more talented than those Pats teams.  Kelly was surrounded by HOFers. Minus Moss, Brady played with a bunch of Jags.  Also check Kelly’s postseason stats.  He kinda sucked in big games.  Brady just lost a SB where he passed for 400 yards.  Also if Kelly didn’t force throws in the 1st SB and just ran Thurman against a 2 man front, that game doesn’t come down to that kick.

 

im glad Kelly is recovering and has become a better man.  He’s the best Bills qb ever but isn’t even in the same conversation as Brady, who is a whiny tool but the best ever.

 

Agreed, Brady played with temps at WR and RB, with a few exceptions, and played outdoors to cut into his stats.

 

the AFC only gave Kelly one serious challenge, the Carlton Bailey tipped passed game against Denver.

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, HT02 said:

I don't think you could make a case that Kelly is better than Brady but I think you could for Montana, Unitas, Marino and maybe Elway.

Yep. Football is a team sport. Frankly, Marino was never the reason his team didn't win a SB. Ditto Kelly. The only SB I thought Jim could've done more was the Giants. But, that was a team "effort". Parcells & Belichick took Marv & the Bills coaches to the woodshed.

Edited by Billsfanatic8989
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Billsfanatic8989 said:

My cousin thinks Brady is not better than Kelly. The reason is: A) Kelly was more mobile. B) Belichick is a better coach than Levy. C) 4 straight SB appearances. D)

Deflategate/Spygate

 

Can any case be made Kelly is just as good, if not better, than Brady? Jim played in an era that wasn't as kind to Qb's.

 

Not really much of a case.

 

Kelly wasn’t even the greatest in his era, meaning, Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Farve and Manning, maybe even Moon would all need to be  considered better than Brady too. 

 

Thats not selling anywhere 

Posted (edited)

So much ESPN brainwash in this thread. Matt Cassell stepped in and was BETTER than Brady in that system, yet was a total scrub on other teams. The system revolves around cheating and on any other team TODAY (let alone past eras) Brady would look like a scrub. Peyton would have at least 10-15 Super Bowls if he played in that system and had the benefit of all that cheating. Any success related to that team under Bellicheck is meaningless.

Edited by Troll Toll
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
20 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Johnny Unitas is the best to ever play.  Brady isn't even in that conversation.

 

Otto Graham is the best ever to play. Brady isnt even in that conversation.

Posted
5 minutes ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

 

Otto Graham is the best ever to play. Brady isnt even in that conversation.

 

Bite your tongue, heretic!  Johnny U was a man among boys.  Otto may have invented the modern QB position, but Johnny U perfected it, then invented the two minute drill, and personally unseated baseball as the nation's pastime.

 

Graham may have invented the position.  Unitas invented football.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Bite your tongue, heretic!  Johnny U was a man among boys.  Otto may have invented the modern QB position, but Johnny U perfected it, then invented the two minute drill, and personally unseated baseball as the nation's pastime.

 

Graham may have invented the position.  Unitas invented football.

Broadway Joe upended baseball, not Johnny U. 

×
×
  • Create New...