Where would Jim Kelly in his prime rank amongst todays QBs?

[Kelly to Allen]

6 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

Yeah offensive line great at run blocking and good enough at pass blocking that Josh can maneuver the pocket enough and avoid taking unnecessary sacks

They'll be ready for whoever they face in the super bowl. 

[Drew21PA]

Jim wasn’t very mobile - but I can see him adapting to the new rules and really picking up some solid PI’s with his placement and accuracy 

[TheFunPolice]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’m struggling with how anyone could argue that he was more impactful than Lamar? 

 

That's a good point, and I was thinking about Lamar as well here...

 

Speaking for myself, it's a matter of comparing a career that we know the entirety of vs a career in year #7.  All of that goes into the equation and makes it tough. In Year #7 with the Bills Kelly led them to their 3rd consecutive Super Bowl. 

 

Kelly's 4 SB appearances (which also came with a lot of post season wins) is the biggest difference. Lamar is amazing, but he hasn't had a lot of post season success (yet). He might. Maybe he wins it all this year, which changes things. Or maybe he (really his team) goes out in the 1st round. 

 

This is what makes hypothetical rankings between eras so tough, especially when one guy is still playing. I remember when Cam Newton looked superhuman and unstoppable. Then all of a sudden he had 1 too many injuries and he was a guy in his late 20's who looked 50 out there and couldn't play anymore. 

 

In a way, it's a question of which Jim Kelly? The young Jim Kelly who put up gaudy stats in college and USFL and then the pros but hadn't proven himself yet? Or the Jim Kelly that led a seemingly unstoppable offense to several SB appearances in a row? 

 

Because if it's the former then yeah, he's probably top 5-7. If you're going with the Jim Kelly who leads a top offense and just played in several Super Bowls in a row then he's top 3 IMO, ahead of Burrow and Lamar. 

 

To that point, why do people still rank Mahomes #1? Rings. Ok his stats are mediocre at best this season and last, but he wins when he has to. 

 

Kelly doesn't have the rings but he did win a lot of huge games to get to multiple Super Bowls. So that would absolutely factor in. After all, 99% of Burrow being "a big game QB and a winner" comes from winning vs KC in the playoffs and his 1 SB loss. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:04 PM by TheFunPolice

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I don’t see Kelly in the top 3 because of Allen, Mahomes and Burrows. I would put Kelly at #4. 

[Buffalo716]

People forget how much rules have impacted the game now and made it easier to play quarterback 

 

Jim Kelly's better than Joe burrow 

 

So he's no worse than third or fourth

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

Rules, defensive schemes, offensive schemes... were all different back then.

If you look at a list of the top twenty most total TDs, they're all newer guys.  No Otto Grahams or Johnny Unitases.   It's just a different game now: more games in a season, more rules to protect the QB, rules that make blocking easier, rules that allow receivers to run free, etc.  

 

Interestingly, the oldest guys in the Top Twenty of total TDs are Marino and Kelly.  Kelly was a scoring machine in his time.  Not quite as strong-armed as Josh but probably more accurate and just as tough.  None of the leg talent though.  

 

Kelly would be top five in today's game with today's rules and schemes.  

 

 

I understand the hagiography around Kelly, but there's just no way he's a top 5 QB, in his prime, today. 

 

He led the league 2 times in his career in passing yards (3844, 3593 yards).   He wasn't a prolific passer (even by his era's standards) and his run game was modest.  

 

Compared to his contemporaries: Marino led the league 6 times (5084, 4706, 4434, 4137, 3997, 3563).  Moon did it 4 times (4690, 4689, 3631, 3489).  Fouts 5 times (4802, 4715, 4082, 3740, 3638).  Marino led the league in TDs 2 times (48 and 44).  Kelly had 1 season over 25 (33).  He had Jim Everett career numbers-plus a few more TDs per season.

 

These 3 guys, far more than Kelly,likely could have been top 10 in their prime today.  Other QBs in that era were lighting it up---with the different rules, with the different schemes. 

 

 

[folz]

Yeah, it's one of those sports opinions that can never be answered, so everyone can stand firm on the stance they've taken.

 

As others have stated, the rule changes have seriously inflated numbers. So, it's hard to compare stats. But to me, the biggest change is protecting the QB. If you didn't have the fastest release in the world back in the day (Marino), you got absolutely pummeled as a QB. That not only makes it more difficult to get your passes off, or to run as a QB, but it also shortened many QBs careers (Kelly being a prime example), with concussions or other injuries. Back in the day, if a QB was 34-35, he was OLD...and there weren't many of them around that age. Brady played to 45.

 

For instance, I still think Mahomes would be a great QB back in the day, but he wouldn't be able to pull off all of the cutesy things that KC does, or do his tip-toeing the sideline, etc. without getting blown up. He has already had a few injuries in his career. How durable would he have been back then, would his career have been shortened? Are there other QBs today that couldn't take the punishment back in the day? Yes, I'm looking at you Tua. Would any of the greats from the 90s not be able to be great in today's game? No, I don't think so. If you put Kelly, Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Aikman in today's NFL, they are all still studs. Yes, there are more mobile QBs in today's NFL, but guys like Stafford, Rodgers, Goff, Burrow, Brady, Manning, Brees, etc. prove that pocket passers can still do just fine in the league today. 

 

In a lot of the greatest QBs of all-time lists, Jim Kelly probably averages around #20. When all is said and done, who from this era would rank higher than 20 on an all-time list? I'm going to say definitely Mahomes and Allen (even though Josh hasn't made a SB yet, it's coming); if Jackson keeps up his production throughout his career, I'd say yes. His playoff performances currently would have me saying no. Maybe I haven't watched enough of Burrow, but I just don't see him in the upper-tier with the other three guys yet. Yeah, he's got swag and a Super Bowl appearance...but I'm not totally sold yet (as far as him being an all-time great). Though his demeanor may be closest to Kelly of the current QBs. Rodgers in his prime, obviously ahead of Kelly. But if you are talking prime Kelly vs. old Rodgers (today), no. Wilson has a chance to be ahead of Kelly due to the Super Bowl win (and depending on how he finishes his career). But given a choice, I'm not taking him over Kelly. Does Herbert have a killer instinct? Big arm, yes, but can he carry a team? Goff, Stafford, and Hurts. Hmmm...I don't know, I don't think I'm taking any of them over Kelly. I'm not sure they have the same level of toughness and leadership that Kelly did, or the consistent ability to elevate the rest of the team..

 

So, as it stands, I think Mahomes, Allen, and Rodgers will all be ahead of Jim when all is said and done. Lamar also has a very good chance of doing so. Maybe Stafford and Wilson because they have rings, but I don't think they're better QBs than Kelly (i.e., I would chose Kelly as my QB over either one). Maybe Burrow has a shot in the long run, but he has a lot more to prove still. That's pretty much it for me (obviously we don't have enough info yet on guys like Stroud and the rookies to assess them yet). So, I'd put prime Kelly in a 3-5 range currently.

 

The guys that said Kelly didn't have a good arm and Kelly would be a backup in today's game obviously have no clue.

 

 

 

[folz]

55 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I understand the hagiography around Kelly, but there's just no way he's a top 5 QB, in his prime, today. 

 

He led the league 2 times in his career in passing yards (3844, 3593 yards).   He wasn't a prolific passer (even by his era's standards) and his run game was modest.  

 

Compared to his contemporaries: Marino led the league 6 times (5084, 4706, 4434, 4137, 3997, 3563).  Moon did it 4 times (4690, 4689, 3631, 3489).  Fouts 5 times (4802, 4715, 4082, 3740, 3638).  Marino led the league in TDs 2 times (48 and 44).  Kelly had 1 season over 25 (33).  He had Jim Everett career numbers-plus a few more TDs per season.

 

These 3 guys, far more than Kelly,likely could have been top 10 in their prime today.  Other QBs in that era were lighting it up---with the different rules, with the different schemes. 

 

 

 

No question about Marino. But, he is probably the greatest pure passer the league has ever seen.

 

Also, you have to look at offenses when comparing stats. Miami never had a run game. It was pass all day long with Marino. The Chargers were nicknamed, "Air Coryell," because they were throwing it all over the yard. And Moon was in the run-and-shoot offense. The league was in a transition to a higher passing league and those three teams were at the forefront of it.

 

Yes, Kelly ran the no-huddle, K-Gun. But that was fast tempo, not necessarily a pass-first offense. A lot of the offense still ran through Thurman.

 

Sometimes it's more about the eye test, how they performed in the big games, were they a winner, did they elevate teammates, etc. rather than just stats. I mean, are you actually trying to argue that Jim Everett was equal to or a better QB than Jim Kelly?

 

In one fewer career seasons, Kelly had 37 more wins, 34 more TDs, and 9 more playoff victories than Everett. Does that not count when talking about greatness?

 

Also, Jim lost two years of stats playing in the USFL. I know the competition wasn't as high in that league, but they were embracing the pass first mentality. In that type of offense, Jim had 9,842 yards and 83 TDs in 2 seasons (that's an average of 4,921 yards and 41.5 TDs per season). Again, lesser competition, but it's obvious that Jim was also a prolific passer when called upon to do so.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:20 PM by folz

[amprov56]

21 hours ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Yeah ok... And Mahomes, Wilson, Jackson, Burrow don't do that every week? All the great ones do. 

I'm starting to question if many of you ever watched Jim Kelly or Andre Reed really play, mind boggling!

Edited Wednesday at 09:37 PM by amprov56

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I understand the hagiography around Kelly, but there's just no way he's a top 5 QB, in his prime, today. 

 

He led the league 2 times in his career in passing yards (3844, 3593 yards).   He wasn't a prolific passer (even by his era's standards) and his run game was modest.  

 

Compared to his contemporaries: Marino led the league 6 times (5084, 4706, 4434, 4137, 3997, 3563).  Moon did it 4 times (4690, 4689, 3631, 3489).  Fouts 5 times (4802, 4715, 4082, 3740, 3638).  Marino led the league in TDs 2 times (48 and 44).  Kelly had 1 season over 25 (33).  He had Jim Everett career numbers-plus a few more TDs per season.

 

These 3 guys, far more than Kelly,likely could have been top 10 in their prime today.  Other QBs in that era were lighting it up---with the different rules, with the different schemes. 

 

 

Leading the league in passing twice is quite the accomplishment 

 

Josh is never led the league in passing yards or passing touchdowns once and we know he's the best

 

The rules today completely favor quarterbacks.. Jim Kelly is better than Joe burrow right now 

 

Joe burrow would not have been able to survive 1988

[Kirby Jackson]

23 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

That's a good point, and I was thinking about Lamar as well here...

 

Speaking for myself, it's a matter of comparing a career that we know the entirety of vs a career in year #7.  All of that goes into the equation and makes it tough. In Year #7 with the Bills Kelly led them to their 3rd consecutive Super Bowl. 

 

Kelly's 4 SB appearances (which also came with a lot of post season wins) is the biggest difference. Lamar is amazing, but he hasn't had a lot of post season success (yet). He might. Maybe he wins it all this year, which changes things. Or maybe he (really his team) goes out in the 1st round. 

 

This is what makes hypothetical rankings between eras so tough, especially when one guy is still playing. I remember when Cam Newton looked superhuman and unstoppable. Then all of a sudden he had 1 too many injuries and he was a guy in his late 20's who looked 50 out there and couldn't play anymore. 

 

In a way, it's a question of which Jim Kelly? The young Jim Kelly who put up gaudy stats in college and USFL and then the pros but hadn't proven himself yet? Or the Jim Kelly that led a seemingly unstoppable offense to several SB appearances in a row? 

 

Because if it's the former then yeah, he's probably top 5-7. If you're going with the Jim Kelly who leads a top offense and just played in several Super Bowls in a row then he's top 3 IMO, ahead of Burrow and Lamar. 

 

To that point, why do people still rank Mahomes #1? Rings. Ok his stats are mediocre at best this season and last, but he wins when he has to. 

 

Kelly doesn't have the rings but he did win a lot of huge games to get to multiple Super Bowls. So that would absolutely factor in. After all, 99% of Burrow being "a big game QB and a winner" comes from winning vs KC in the playoffs and his 1 SB loss. 

I guess the way that I view cross-generational comparisons are with people at their peaks (assuming that it isn’t a Linsanity like timeframe). Lamar at his best, is well ahead of Kelly at his best. He’s won 2 MVPs (1 was soft but if he won this year it would be legit). There was never a time that Kelly was at that level compared to the league. He once finished 2nd & once 5th. Both times, a member of his own team finished ahead of him.

 

Kelly was a great player. We just remember him better than he was. He was more like a Goff/Hurts than an Allen/Lamar.

[chris heff]

I think Kelly would be in the 4-7 range then and now. Now, Allen, Mahomes, Burrows, then Kelly somewhere in the next four. Then Montana, Elway, Marino, again Kelly somewhere in the next four.

[folz]

53 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I guess the way that I view cross-generational comparisons are with people at their peaks (assuming that it isn’t a Linsanity like timeframe). Lamar at his best, is well ahead of Kelly at his best. He’s won 2 MVPs (1 was soft but if he won this year it would be legit). There was never a time that Kelly was at that level compared to the league. He once finished 2nd & once 5th. Both times, a member of his own team finished ahead of him.

 

Kelly was a great player. We just remember him better than he was. He was more like a Goff/Hurts than an Allen/Lamar.

 

I guess the next question would then be, where would Lamar stack up back in Jim's day? Is Lamar better than Montana, Elway, Marino, Young, and Favre? If not, then he might not have his MVPs either. Yes, Lamar won his in a league with Mahomes and Allen (though he probably shouldn't have won the 2nd one last year), but it seems like a pretty random way to make a comparison. Too many other factors involved.

[amprov56]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I understand the hagiography around Kelly, but there's just no way he's a top 5 QB, in his prime, today. 

 

He led the league 2 times in his career in passing yards (3844, 3593 yards).   He wasn't a prolific passer (even by his era's standards) and his run game was modest.  

 

Compared to his contemporaries: Marino led the league 6 times (5084, 4706, 4434, 4137, 3997, 3563).  Moon did it 4 times (4690, 4689, 3631, 3489).  Fouts 5 times (4802, 4715, 4082, 3740, 3638).  Marino led the league in TDs 2 times (48 and 44).  Kelly had 1 season over 25 (33).  He had Jim Everett career numbers-plus a few more TDs per season.

 

These 3 guys, far more than Kelly,likely could have been top 10 in their prime today.  Other QBs in that era were lighting it up---with the different rules, with the different schemes. 

 

 

Here is what you all are missing, it was not Kelly alone, dominant O - Line, HOF receiver Andre Reed, HOF RB Thurmon Thomas, Talley, Bruce Smith and Bennet on defense, a great FO and coaching. Oh ya, Ken Davis, Don Beebe, Lofton, and others who always stepped up. They made plays! Troy Aikman years ago said you can make jokes about the Bills losing SB's but no one will ever go to four straight again!

[mjt328]

2 hours ago, folz said:

Yeah, it's one of those sports opinions that can never be answered, so everyone can stand firm on the stance they've taken.

 

As others have stated, the rule changes have seriously inflated numbers. So, it's hard to compare stats. But to me, the biggest change is protecting the QB. If you didn't have the fastest release in the world back in the day (Marino), you got absolutely pummeled as a QB. That not only makes it more difficult to get your passes off, or to run as a QB, but it also shortened many QBs careers (Kelly being a prime example), with concussions or other injuries. Back in the day, if a QB was 34-35, he was OLD...and there weren't many of them around that age. Brady played to 45.

 

For instance, I still think Mahomes would be a great QB back in the day, but he wouldn't be able to pull off all of the cutesy things that KC does, or do his tip-toeing the sideline, etc. without getting blown up. He has already had a few injuries in his career. How durable would he have been back then, would his career have been shortened? Are there other QBs today that couldn't take the punishment back in the day? Yes, I'm looking at you Tua. Would any of the greats from the 90s not be able to be great in today's game? No, I don't think so. If you put Kelly, Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Aikman in today's NFL, they are all still studs. Yes, there are more mobile QBs in today's NFL, but guys like Stafford, Rodgers, Goff, Burrow, Brady, Manning, Brees, etc. prove that pocket passers can still do just fine in the league today. 

 

In a lot of the greatest QBs of all-time lists, Jim Kelly probably averages around #20. When all is said and done, who from this era would rank higher than 20 on an all-time list? I'm going to say definitely Mahomes and Allen (even though Josh hasn't made a SB yet, it's coming); if Jackson keeps up his production throughout his career, I'd say yes. His playoff performances currently would have me saying no. Maybe I haven't watched enough of Burrow, but I just don't see him in the upper-tier with the other three guys yet. Yeah, he's got swag and a Super Bowl appearance...but I'm not totally sold yet (as far as him being an all-time great). Though his demeanor may be closest to Kelly of the current QBs. Rodgers in his prime, obviously ahead of Kelly. But if you are talking prime Kelly vs. old Rodgers (today), no. Wilson has a chance to be ahead of Kelly due to the Super Bowl win (and depending on how he finishes his career). But given a choice, I'm not taking him over Kelly. Does Herbert have a killer instinct? Big arm, yes, but can he carry a team? Goff, Stafford, and Hurts. Hmmm...I don't know, I don't think I'm taking any of them over Kelly. I'm not sure they have the same level of toughness and leadership that Kelly did, or the consistent ability to elevate the rest of the team..

 

So, as it stands, I think Mahomes, Allen, and Rodgers will all be ahead of Jim when all is said and done. Lamar also has a very good chance of doing so. Maybe Stafford and Wilson because they have rings, but I don't think they're better QBs than Kelly (i.e., I would chose Kelly as my QB over either one). Maybe Burrow has a shot in the long run, but he has a lot more to prove still. That's pretty much it for me (obviously we don't have enough info yet on guys like Stroud and the rookies to assess them yet). So, I'd put prime Kelly in a 3-5 range currently.

 

The guys that said Kelly didn't have a good arm and Kelly would be a backup in today's game obviously have no clue.

 

Excellent post.

 

Younger fans have absolutely NO IDEA how much the rules have changed the NFL over the last 20-30 years, and how it's DRASTICALLY inflated offensive production and passing numbers.  You can't even start to compare the different generations by simply looking at stats.  The game is way easier for QBs today.  It's a total joke to bring up things like yards, completion percentage or interceptions.  Jim Kelly in 2024 gets a huge boost in stats.  Today's passers in 1990 find things way tougher, and get a big drop.

 

You mentioned the rules made to protect the QB, which is obviously huge for longevity.  Guys can play 5-10 years longer, stay healthier during the season, and feel more comfortable throwing in the pocket with far less threat of taking a serious injury.  But what about things like illegal contact, which has made pass defense a million times more difficult for corners?  Or penalties for DBs hitting defenseless receivers, which makes it way easier to work the ball over the short/middle of the field?  QBs today get tons of free checkdown yards now, which weren't available to guys back in Jim Kelly's day.  More easy yards.  Higher completion percentage.  Less reason to risk interceptions.  The list goes on and on.  

 

Kelly was one of the smartest and toughest QBs who ever played.  A tremendous leader.  He was very accurate, and had a powerful arm comparable with most starters in the NFL today.  What else could you possibly want?  He absolutely would be amongst the elite passers in today's game.  And his stats would certainly be much better than what he posted during his career, due to all the reasons above.  Throw in today's advancements in athletic training, he's Top 3 for sure, if not the top guy in the entire league.

 

You also make a great point about Patrick Mahomes and how well his style may not have actually fit so well back in Kelly's day... but it also somewhat applies to Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson.  All of those guys are currently doing things the NFL has never truly seen before.  But their mobility and ability to extend plays is clearly boosted by today's rules... which are specifically intended to protect QBs.  There is a reason that "running quarterbacks" had trouble succeeding in the pros back then, and the few who did (Steve Young, Randall Cunningham) had relatively short careers compared to the pocket guys.  Allen may be the outlier because of his size, but he's still taking much less punishment than he would have back in the 1980s or 1990s.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

33 minutes ago, folz said:

 

I guess the next question would then be, where would Lamar stack up back in Jim's day? Is Lamar better than Montana, Elway, Marino, Young, and Favre? If not, then he might not have his MVPs either. Yes, Lamar won his in a league with Mahomes and Allen (though he probably shouldn't have won the 2nd one last year), but it seems like a pretty random way to make a comparison. Too many other factors involved.

Well the game evolves both ways. You have to look at where they are vs. their peers. The point is Lamar has consistently been viewed as one of the best few players in the league. He has 2 MVPs and will have another top 3 appearance this year. He’s elite in his era. Kelly didn’t have 2 MVPs and another top 3 finish (within his first 7 years). Let’s not overthink it. Some people are trying to take skill sets and drop them into different eras. That’s not possible because the game evolves. “How did they compare vs. their contemporaries?”  Kelly was never the top player. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:29 PM by Kirby Jackson

[mjt328]

37 minutes ago, folz said:

I guess the next question would then be, where would Lamar stack up back in Jim's day? Is Lamar better than Montana, Elway, Marino, Young, and Favre? If not, then he might not have his MVPs either. Yes, Lamar won his in a league with Mahomes and Allen (though he probably shouldn't have won the 2nd one last year), but it seems like a pretty random way to make a comparison. Too many other factors involved.

 

Lamar Jackson ranks slightly higher in his era (in my opinion, 3rd behind Mahomes and Allen).  

Kelly was probably #4 in his era (behind Marino, Montana and Elway).

 

However, I think Jackson wouldn't have made it physically back in the 80's-90's.  Injuries would have piled up and hurt his career.

In today's game, Kelly would have dominated even more.

 

7 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Well the game evolves both ways. You have to look at where they are vs. their peers. The point is Lamar has consistently been viewed as one of the best few players in the league. He has 2 MVPs and will have another top 3 appearance this year. He’s elite in his era. Kelly didn’t have 2 MVPs and another top 3 finish (within his first 7 years). Let’s not overthink it. Some people are trying to take skill sets and drop them into different eras. That’s not possible because the game evolves. “How did they compare vs. their contemporaries?”  Kelly was never the top player. 

 

In regards to MVP... that award was regularly given to running backs and receivers back in those days.  So there was way more competition to win it.  Today it is almost exclusively a QB award, with rare exceptions.

Kelly rarely had the stats of his peers either, mostly due to Thurman Thomas getting a ton of work.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:33 PM by mjt328

[Kirby Jackson]

6 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

Lamar Jackson ranks slightly higher in his era (in my opinion, 3rd behind Mahomes and Allen).  

Kelly was probably #4 in his era (behind Marino, Montana and Elway).

 

However, I think Jackson wouldn't have made it physically back in the 80's-90's.  Injuries would have piled up and hurt his career.

In today's game, Kelly would have dominated even more.

 

 

In regards to MVP... that award was regularly given to running backs and receivers back in those days.  So there was way more competition to win it.  Today it is almost exclusively a QB award, with rare exceptions.

Kelly rarely had the stats of his peers either, mostly due to Thurman Thomas getting a ton of work.

 

Again, all fine and good. Once he was considered the 5th best player and the other time the 2nd best player. Bruce and Thurman each finished ahead of him. Lamar has twice been considered the MVP & this year he will be top 3. He’s been in the league 7 years. He is regularly considered one of the best players in the league. Kelly didn’t hit the ballot in any other year based on what I saw. He’s more Goff or Hurts than Allen/Lamar/Mahomes. 
 

Depending on how you view Aikman, Moon, Young, etc… determines where Kelly was in his own era. He is definitely behind Marino, Montana and Elway. 4 is the ceiling. We obviously remember him fondly because he was the QB of the best teams in franchise history. He was a piece but as you mentioned, players like Thurman were better. Bruce obviously was as well. 

[Mr. WEO]

17 hours ago, folz said:

 

No question about Marino. But, he is probably the greatest pure passer the league has ever seen.

 

Also, you have to look at offenses when comparing stats. Miami never had a run game. It was pass all day long with Marino. The Chargers were nicknamed, "Air Coryell," because they were throwing it all over the yard. And Moon was in the run-and-shoot offense. The league was in a transition to a higher passing league and those three teams were at the forefront of it.

 

Yes, Kelly ran the no-huddle, K-Gun. But that was fast tempo, not necessarily a pass-first offense. A lot of the offense still ran through Thurman.

 

Sometimes it's more about the eye test, how they performed in the big games, were they a winner, did they elevate teammates, etc. rather than just stats. I mean, are you actually trying to argue that Jim Everett was equal to or a better QB than Jim Kelly?

 

In one fewer career seasons, Kelly had 37 more wins, 34 more TDs, and 9 more playoff victories than Everett. Does that not count when talking about greatness?

 

Also, Jim lost two years of stats playing in the USFL. I know the competition wasn't as high in that league, but they were embracing the pass first mentality. In that type of offense, Jim had 9,842 yards and 83 TDs in 2 seasons (that's an average of 4,921 yards and 41.5 TDs per season). Again, lesser competition, but it's obvious that Jim was also a prolific passer when called upon to do so.

 

 

 

No, actually I'm not.   Not sure how that is your conclusion of from what I have been posting.

 

But anyway, the topic is whether Kelly is a top 5 if he was playing today.  The three other guys I mentioned could be--based on their stats while they were contemporaries with Kelly, who's team did not run as much of the Offense through him. 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Leading the league in passing twice is quite the accomplishment 

 

Josh is never led the league in passing yards or passing touchdowns once and we know he's the best

 

The rules today completely favor quarterbacks.. Jim Kelly is better than Joe burrow right now 

 

Joe burrow would not have been able to survive 1988

 

It is yes.  And yes the rules favor the passing game more now for sure.  But even in his prime, there were much better passers in the league than Kelly>  I've mentioned them as the only likely guys from that era that would be top 5 today.

 

What is Kelly better at than Burrow?  We hear over and over how much tougher QBs had it back then---yet every season we see starters getting lit up and knocked out of games, missing games, IR, countless backups getting starts.  Because of so many more dropbacks they take compared to 30 years ago, QBs today take a lot more hits.

 

 

15 hours ago, amprov56 said:

Here is what you all are missing, it was not Kelly alone, dominant O - Line, HOF receiver Andre Reed, HOF RB Thurmon Thomas, Talley, Bruce Smith and Bennet on defense, a great FO and coaching. Oh ya, Ken Davis, Don Beebe, Lofton, and others who always stepped up. They made plays! Troy Aikman years ago said you can make jokes about the Bills losing SB's but no one will ever go to four straight again!

 

I didn't miss those at all--in fact, it makes my point.  Kelly was surrounded by HOFers.  So they won a ton of games with modest passing numbers.  Imagine those Bills with that Defense, Thurman....and Marino behind Center.  At least 1 Lombardy would be in the Bills trophy cabinet.

[amprov56]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No, actually I'm not.   Not sure how that is your conclusion of from what I have been posting.

 

But anyway, the topic is whether Kelly is a top 5 if he was playing today.  The three other guys I mentioned could be--based on their stats while they were contemporaries with Kelly, who's team did not run as much of the Offense through him. 

 

 

 

 

It is yes.  And yes the rules favor the passing game more now for sure.  But even in his prime, there were much better passers in the league than Kelly>  I've mentioned them as the only likely guys from that era that would be top 5 today.

 

What is Kelly better at than Burrow?  We hear over and over how much tougher QBs had it back then---yet every season we see starters getting lit up and knocked out of games, missing games, IR, countless backups getting starts.  Because of so many more dropbacks they take compared to 30 years ago, QBs today take a lot more hits.

 

 

 

I didn't miss those at all--in fact, it makes my point.  Kelly was surrounded by HOFers.  So they won a ton of games with modest passing numbers.  Imagine those Bills with that Defense, Thurman....and Marino behind Center.  At least 1 Lombardy would be in the Bills trophy cabinet.

Ya ok!