HOF Question (1 Viewer)

[tikitime]

Here is player 1's (Boomer) stats:

CMP Att Cmp% Yds TD Int Rat

2969 5205 57.0 37920 247 184 81.1

Player 2 (Kelly)-

2874 4779 60.1 35467 237 175 84

One is in the hall of fame, and one didn't even get a sniff

Neither won a Super Bowl but both have been there. Both went to the Pro Bowl 4 times

Why no love for Boomer vs. Kelly?

Is it purely the Super Bowls?

Here is Kelly's combined SB line-

81 145 56% 829 2TDs 7Ints

 

[CalBear]

Esiason had 3 seasons in his career with a winning record. Kelly had 8, including four Super Bowl appearances. He also has marginally better career stats than Esiason, and compared better on a year-by-year basis to his peers. It's hard to find any measure where Esiason is Kelly's equal.

 

[dwarfboy]

Remember also that Kelly ran his offense from the field, calling all the plays and running a fantastic no huddle offense.

 

[tikitime]

Esiason had 3 seasons in his career with a winning record. Kelly had 8, including four Super Bowl appearances. He also has marginally better career stats than Esiason, and compared better on a year-by-year basis to his peers. It's hard to find any measure where Esiason is Kelly's equal.

How so? Was it the last few years of Boomer's career that did him in? Kelly's 5 year peak could not match Boomer from 85 - 89.

 

[Koya]

Man, did people WATCH these guys play?

If so, there is NO question. Football is not baseball. Stats don't tell much of the story.

Anyone who watched the careers of these two should recognize that Boomer was a good QB with some very good moments... and that Kelly was a HoFer, albeit not one of the uber elite HoFers.

 

[switz]

Boomer played for 13 years, Kelly only 10.

Kelly:

4 Pro Bowls

3 All Pros

#1 Passer Rating 1990 (101.4)

#1 Passing TDs 1991

#1 Passing TD % 1990, 1991

17 playoff games

Esiason:

4 Pro Bowls

2 All Pros

#1 Passer Rating 1988 (97.1)

5 playoff games - is that REALLY true?????

In 10 years, Kelly far surpassed what Esiason did in 13 IMO.

 

[tikitime]

Boomer played for 13 years, Kelly only 10.

Kelly:

4 Pro Bowls

3 All Pros

#1 Passer Rating 1990 (101.4)

#1 Passing TDs 1991

#1 Passing TD % 1990, 1991

17 playoff games

Esiason:

4 Pro Bowls

2 All Pros

#1 Passer Rating 1988 (97.1)

Edit to add Top 3 in TD % 4 times

5 playoff games - is that REALLY true?????

In 10 years, Kelly far surpassed what Esiason did in 13 IMO.

How much of this had to do with talent around them? Andre reed/Thomas/James Lofton vs. Eddie Brown/Tim McGee/James BrooksAnd that Boomer played for one of the worst run, cheapest franchises in the league

(I'm not a Boomer apologist, I was just bored at lunch)

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

 

[switz]

How so? Was it the last few years of Boomer's career? Kelly's 5 year peak could not match Boomer from 85 - 89.

Esiason 85-89:

1985	24	CIN	QB	15	14	251	431	58.2	3443	27	6.3	12	2.8	68	8.0	7.4	13.7	229.5	93.2	32	289	6.8	6.2	6.91986	25	CIN	QB	16	16	273	469	58.2	3959	24	5.1	17	3.6	57	8.4	7.3	14.5	247.4	87.7	26	194	7.6	6.5	5.31987	26	CIN	QB	12	12	240	440	54.5	3321	16	3.6	19	4.3	61	7.5	6.0	13.8	276.8	73.1	26	209	6.7	5.2	5.61988	27	CIN	QB	16	16	223	388	57.5	3572	28	7.2	14	3.6	86	9.2	8.3	16.0	223.3	97.4	30	245	8.0	7.1	7.21989	28	CIN	QB	16	15	258	455	56.7	3525	28	6.2	11	2.4	74	7.7	7.3	13.7	220.3	92.1	36	288	6.6	6.2	7.3

TOTAL: 1245 comp, 2183 att, 57%, 17,820 yards, 123 TDs, 73 INTsKelly 89-93:

1989	29	BUF	QB	13	13	228	391	58.3	3130	25	6.4	18	4.6	78	8.0	6.6	13.7	240.8	86.2	30	216	6.9	5.6	7.11990	30	BUF	QB	14	14	219	346	63.3	2829	24	6.9	9	2.6	71	8.2	7.7	12.9	202.1	101.2	20	158	7.3	6.8	5.51991	31	BUF	QB	15	15	304	474	64.1	3844	33	7.0	17	3.6	77	8.1	7.2	12.6	256.3	97.6	31	227	7.2	6.3	6.11992	32	BUF	QB	16	16	269	462	58.2	3457	23	5.0	19	4.1	65	7.5	6.1	12.9	216.1	81.2	20	145	6.9	5.6	4.11993	33	BUF	QB	16	16	288	470	61.3	3382	18	3.8	18	3.8	65	7.2	5.9	11.7	211.4	79.9	25	171	6.5	5.2	5.1

TOTAL: 1308 comp, 2143 att, 61%, 16,642 yards, 123TDs, 81 INTsKelly had a higher completion %, same # TDs, 8 more INTs (1.6/year). I don't see how you can stand by your statement at all.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Man, did people WATCH these guys play?If so, there is NO question. Football is not baseball. Stats don't tell much of the story.Anyone who watched the careers of these two should recognize that Boomer was a good QB with some very good moments... and that Kelly was a HoFer, albeit not one of the uber elite HoFers.

 

[fred_1_15301]

How so? Was it the last few years of Boomer's career? Kelly's 5 year peak could not match Boomer from 85 - 89.

Esiason 85-89:

1985	24	CIN	QB	15	14	251	431	58.2	3443	27	6.3	12	2.8	68	8.0	7.4	13.7	229.5	93.2	32	289	6.8	6.2	6.91986	25	CIN	QB	16	16	273	469	58.2	3959	24	5.1	17	3.6	57	8.4	7.3	14.5	247.4	87.7	26	194	7.6	6.5	5.31987	26	CIN	QB	12	12	240	440	54.5	3321	16	3.6	19	4.3	61	7.5	6.0	13.8	276.8	73.1	26	209	6.7	5.2	5.61988	27	CIN	QB	16	16	223	388	57.5	3572	28	7.2	14	3.6	86	9.2	8.3	16.0	223.3	97.4	30	245	8.0	7.1	7.21989	28	CIN	QB	16	15	258	455	56.7	3525	28	6.2	11	2.4	74	7.7	7.3	13.7	220.3	92.1	36	288	6.6	6.2	7.3

TOTAL: 1245 comp, 2183 att, 57%, 17,820 yards, 123 TDs, 73 INTsKelly 89-93:

1989	29	BUF	QB	13	13	228	391	58.3	3130	25	6.4	18	4.6	78	8.0	6.6	13.7	240.8	86.2	30	216	6.9	5.6	7.11990	30	BUF	QB	14	14	219	346	63.3	2829	24	6.9	9	2.6	71	8.2	7.7	12.9	202.1	101.2	20	158	7.3	6.8	5.51991	31	BUF	QB	15	15	304	474	64.1	3844	33	7.0	17	3.6	77	8.1	7.2	12.6	256.3	97.6	31	227	7.2	6.3	6.11992	32	BUF	QB	16	16	269	462	58.2	3457	23	5.0	19	4.1	65	7.5	6.1	12.9	216.1	81.2	20	145	6.9	5.6	4.11993	33	BUF	QB	16	16	288	470	61.3	3382	18	3.8	18	3.8	65	7.2	5.9	11.7	211.4	79.9	25	171	6.5	5.2	5.1

TOTAL: 1308 comp, 2143 att, 61%, 16,642 yards, 123TDs, 81 INTsKelly had a higher completion %, same # TDs, 8 more INTs (1.6/year). I don't see how you can stand by your statement at all.

Based on the stats that you just posted, Esiason is much better. he had a better td/int ratio, better rating, more yards and more yds/completion.

 

[tikitime]

How so? Was it the last few years of Boomer's career? Kelly's 5 year peak could not match Boomer from 85 - 89.

Esiason 85-89:

1985	24	CIN	QB	15	14	251	431	58.2	3443	27	6.3	12	2.8	68	8.0	7.4	13.7	229.5	93.2	32	289	6.8	6.2	6.91986	25	CIN	QB	16	16	273	469	58.2	3959	24	5.1	17	3.6	57	8.4	7.3	14.5	247.4	87.7	26	194	7.6	6.5	5.31987	26	CIN	QB	12	12	240	440	54.5	3321	16	3.6	19	4.3	61	7.5	6.0	13.8	276.8	73.1	26	209	6.7	5.2	5.61988	27	CIN	QB	16	16	223	388	57.5	3572	28	7.2	14	3.6	86	9.2	8.3	16.0	223.3	97.4	30	245	8.0	7.1	7.21989	28	CIN	QB	16	15	258	455	56.7	3525	28	6.2	11	2.4	74	7.7	7.3	13.7	220.3	92.1	36	288	6.6	6.2	7.3

TOTAL: 1245 comp, 2183 att, 57%, 17,820 yards, 123 TDs, 73 INTsKelly 89-93:

1989	29	BUF	QB	13	13	228	391	58.3	3130	25	6.4	18	4.6	78	8.0	6.6	13.7	240.8	86.2	30	216	6.9	5.6	7.11990	30	BUF	QB	14	14	219	346	63.3	2829	24	6.9	9	2.6	71	8.2	7.7	12.9	202.1	101.2	20	158	7.3	6.8	5.51991	31	BUF	QB	15	15	304	474	64.1	3844	33	7.0	17	3.6	77	8.1	7.2	12.6	256.3	97.6	31	227	7.2	6.3	6.11992	32	BUF	QB	16	16	269	462	58.2	3457	23	5.0	19	4.1	65	7.5	6.1	12.9	216.1	81.2	20	145	6.9	5.6	4.11993	33	BUF	QB	16	16	288	470	61.3	3382	18	3.8	18	3.8	65	7.2	5.9	11.7	211.4	79.9	25	171	6.5	5.2	5.1

TOTAL: 1308 comp, 2143 att, 61%, 16,642 yards, 123TDs, 81 INTsKelly had a higher completion %, same # TDs, 8 more INTs (1.6/year). I don't see how you can stand by your statement at all.

Boomer- 8.1 Y/aKelly- 7.8- y/aCombining that with his lower INTs. I think an argument can be made that they were very comparable players in their heyday, and Boomer played with MUCH less talent around him across the board.I think I'm not saying that Boomer should be in, just that maybe Kelly should be out, as he was never a special player, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and I find it odd that Kelly got in right away, and Boomer never got any consideration at all considering the general similarity of their stats.AND that Kelly never won a thing

 

[ScottNorwood]

Boomer- 8.1 Y/aKelly- 7.8- y/a

Who cares?

 

[switz]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

You're kidding right? I'm not sure you consider "in his era" but I'll throw out a few names...Esiason, Marino, Elway, Aikman, Kosar, Simms, Rypien, Aikman, Moon.

Of those, I would say Elway, Kelly, and Marino are 1,2,3 in that order.

In his 10 years:

7 times top-10 completions, 5 times top-5

6 times top-10 in yards, 4 times top-5

9 times top-10 TDs, 5 times top-5, once #1

7 times top-10 passer rating, 2 times top-5, once #1

8 times top-10 in comp %, 5 times top-5, once #1

I don't think anyone "never even close" would never have finished #1 in ANY category versus his peers.

Ten years after his retirement, he's still

#15 overall in completions

#14 in passing yards

#18 in passing TDs

#22 in passer rating (of note: all but five above him are currently active players)

#14 passing yards per game (of note: all but four above him are currently active players)

and the list goes on

For Kelly playing on average 5 years shorter than his "contemporaries" he sure put up numbers right alongside them.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

Just comparing these two guys, you would have to say they are pretty much equal.

Kelly would be 6a and Esiason would be 6b in the qb rankings of their era (mid 80’s to mid 90’s)

1. Elway

2. Marino

3. Young

4. Moon

5. Aikman

 

[ScottNorwood]

Boomer- 8.1 Y/aKelly- 7.8- y/a

Who cares?

Do you want to make up another stat to prove your point? Which QB had the best rush attempt to black shoelace ratio?

 

[switz]

Boomer- 8.1 Y/aKelly- 7.8- y/aCombining that with his lower INTs. I think an argument can be made that they were very comparable players in their heyday, and Boomer played with MUCH less talent around him across the board.I think I'm not saying that Boomer should be in, just that maybe Kelly should be out, as he was never a special player, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and I find it odd that Kelly got in right away, and Boomer never got any consideration at all considering the general similarity of their stats.AND that Kelly never won a thing

first, Y/A has very little to do with the QB. Second, your talent argument is ridiculous. Boomer had Woods, Brooks, McGee. Kelly had Reed and Thomas. Sure he had other guys come and go, Lofton was at the end of his career. None of the other guys were super special. Boomer had Munoz on the line, Kelly had a decent line, but no superstars.Last time I checked you had to win games to make it to the SuperBowl. Esiason has been in 5 playoff games total, how did he win anything more than Kelly? If you don't think Kelly was a special player, you just don't know football. Sorry, I have no other explanation. He was a clear cut 1st ballot HOF player.

 

[tikitime]

Just comparing these two guys, you would have to say they are pretty much equal.

Kelly would be 6a and Esiason would be 6b in the qb rankings of their era (mid 80’s to mid 90’s)

1. Elway

2. Marino

3. Young

4. Moon

5. Aikman

While we're questioning HOFers....

 

[switz]

Just comparing these two guys, you would have to say they are pretty much equal.Kelly would be 6a and Esiason would be 6b in the qb rankings of their era (mid 80’s to mid 90’s) 1. Elway 2. Marino3. Young4. Moon5. Aikman

I can see an argument for Marino and Elway above Kelly. Elway however, despite a longer career, finished behind Kelly in career overalls in a number of areas. Marino owned most passing records for a long time, but wasn't a team leader, and as a QB I think that matters.Moon was nowhere near the overall QB Kelly was, as much as I respect Moon, his stats are very overinflated by the run and shoot.Young I don't consider a contemporary, as he really just overlapped the end of Kelly's career. Aikman the same.However even if you include Aikman, he was NOWHERE NEAR belonging on this list at all. He was successful for three reasons: Emmitt Smith and the OL, the Cowboys D, and the Michael Irvin push off. He threw over 20 TDs ONCE in his entire career. For 25% of his career, he threw more INTs than TDs. The guy is totally a product of his team.

 

[tikitime]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

You're kidding right? I'm not sure you consider "in his era" but I'll throw out a few names...Esiason, Marino, Elway, Aikman, Kosar, Simms, Rypien, Aikman, Moon.

Of those, I would say Elway, Kelly, and Marino are 1,2,3 in that order.

In his 10 years:

7 times top-10 completions, 5 times top-5 Boomer gets killed here too

6 times top-10 in yards, 4 times top-5- Boomer 7/4

9 times top-10 TDs, 5 times top-5, once #1 Boomer- 7/4 (3 #2s)

7 times top-10 passer rating, 2 times top-5, once #1 5/3

8 times top-10 in comp %, 5 times top-5, once #1 This is where Boomer falls off

I don't think anyone "never even close" would never have finished #1 in ANY category versus his peers.

Ten years after his retirement, he's still

#15 overall in completions

#14 in passing yards

#18 in passing TDs

#22 in passer rating (of note: all but five above him are currently active players)

#14 passing yards per game (of note: all but four above him are currently active players)

and the list goes on

For Kelly playing on average 5 years shorter than his "contemporaries" he sure put up numbers right alongside them.

So 3% completion rate is the difference between first ballot HOFer and a guy that never got any consideration. I guess that makes a decent distinction, about one more incompletion a game

 

[switz]

How so? Was it the last few years of Boomer's career? Kelly's 5 year peak could not match Boomer from 85 - 89.

Esiason 85-89:

1985	24	CIN	QB	15	14	251	431	58.2	3443	27	6.3	12	2.8	68	8.0	7.4	13.7	229.5	93.2	32	289	6.8	6.2	6.91986	25	CIN	QB	16	16	273	469	58.2	3959	24	5.1	17	3.6	57	8.4	7.3	14.5	247.4	87.7	26	194	7.6	6.5	5.31987	26	CIN	QB	12	12	240	440	54.5	3321	16	3.6	19	4.3	61	7.5	6.0	13.8	276.8	73.1	26	209	6.7	5.2	5.61988	27	CIN	QB	16	16	223	388	57.5	3572	28	7.2	14	3.6	86	9.2	8.3	16.0	223.3	97.4	30	245	8.0	7.1	7.21989	28	CIN	QB	16	15	258	455	56.7	3525	28	6.2	11	2.4	74	7.7	7.3	13.7	220.3	92.1	36	288	6.6	6.2	7.3

TOTAL: 1245 comp, 2183 att, 57%, 17,820 yards, 123 TDs, 73 INTsKelly 89-93:

1989	29	BUF	QB	13	13	228	391	58.3	3130	25	6.4	18	4.6	78	8.0	6.6	13.7	240.8	86.2	30	216	6.9	5.6	7.11990	30	BUF	QB	14	14	219	346	63.3	2829	24	6.9	9	2.6	71	8.2	7.7	12.9	202.1	101.2	20	158	7.3	6.8	5.51991	31	BUF	QB	15	15	304	474	64.1	3844	33	7.0	17	3.6	77	8.1	7.2	12.6	256.3	97.6	31	227	7.2	6.3	6.11992	32	BUF	QB	16	16	269	462	58.2	3457	23	5.0	19	4.1	65	7.5	6.1	12.9	216.1	81.2	20	145	6.9	5.6	4.11993	33	BUF	QB	16	16	288	470	61.3	3382	18	3.8	18	3.8	65	7.2	5.9	11.7	211.4	79.9	25	171	6.5	5.2	5.1

TOTAL: 1308 comp, 2143 att, 61%, 16,642 yards, 123TDs, 81 INTsKelly had a higher completion %, same # TDs, 8 more INTs (1.6/year). I don't see how you can stand by your statement at all.

Based on the stats that you just posted, Esiason is much better. he had a better td/int ratio, better rating, more yards and more yds/completion.

I see you like to follow people around, just to be a troll. Either way, any sensible football fan would not draw the conclusion you did. Better passer rating? Esiason never broke 100 in a season, Kelly did. Kelly never had a passer rating of 73, Esiason did. In fact, Esiason's avg rating was 88.7, Kelly's was 89.2 - so you're just wrong on that account.TD/INT ratio was almost the same, Esiason, .59, Kelly .65.Yards per attempt, I tihnk a few other people already noted that it's a joke of a stat in comparing QBs. So go troll somewhere else.

 

[CalBear]

So 3% completion rate is the difference between first ballot HOFer and a guy that never got any consideration. I guess that makes a decent distinction, about one more incompletion a game

3% completion rate is the difference between Brett Favre and Chris Chandler.

 

[tikitime]

So 3% completion rate is the difference between first ballot HOFer and a guy that never got any consideration. I guess that makes a decent distinction, about one more incompletion a game

3% completion rate is the difference between Brett Favre and Chris Chandler.

I get that, no intended

 

[Tau837]

Moon was nowhere near the overall QB Kelly was, as much as I respect Moon, his stats are very overinflated by the run and shoot.

Couldn't let this slide. Moon threw for over 4200 yards twice in Minnesota, at age 38 and 39, and for 3678/25 in Seattle at age 41. He clearly was a great QB, run and shoot or not. I would probably agree that Kelly was better, but IMO it was much closer than you suggest.

 

[Koya]

Moon was nowhere near the overall QB Kelly was, as much as I respect Moon, his stats are very overinflated by the run and shoot.

Couldn't let this slide. Moon threw for over 4200 yards twice in Minnesota, at age 38 and 39, and for 3678/25 in Seattle at age 41. He clearly was a great QB, run and shoot or not. I would probably agree that Kelly was better, but IMO it was much closer than you suggest.

Whatever Moon gained by his system is easily outweighed by the fact that his PRIME was in the CFL in large part because of the wrong reasons for not getting a chance in the NFL.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

Agreed completely with this statement. I'd only put in Marino, Young, and Elway from this era and even Elway is cutting it close. I think the HOF should have much tougher criteria.

 

[Koya]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

Agreed completely with this statement. I'd only put in Marino, Young, and Elway from this era and even Elway is cutting it close. I think the HOF should have much tougher criteria.

WHA??????????????

 

[Pat Patriot]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

Agreed completely with this statement. I'd only put in Marino, Young, and Elway from this era and even Elway is cutting it close. I think the HOF should have much tougher criteria.

somewhat I do think Elway is a no brainer HOF'er. You saw greatness when you watched him.I dont think Moon or Kelly should be HOF'ers. Never thought I was watching greatness when watching Moon or Kelly. They failed the eye test for me.

 

[Tau837]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

Agreed completely with this statement. I'd only put in Marino, Young, and Elway from this era and even Elway is cutting it close. I think the HOF should have much tougher criteria.

at Elway "cutting it close".Your statement that the HOF should have much tougher criteria implies that there are undeserving players in the HOF. You have basically indicated here that you think Aikman, Moon, and Kelly are among them. Who else?

 

[Yenrub]

Moon was nowhere near the overall QB Kelly was, as much as I respect Moon, his stats are very overinflated by the run and shoot.

Couldn't let this slide. Moon threw for over 4200 yards twice in Minnesota, at age 38 and 39, and for 3678/25 in Seattle at age 41. He clearly was a great QB, run and shoot or not. I would probably agree that Kelly was better, but IMO it was much closer than you suggest.

Can't the same thing be said about Kelly and the K-gun?

 

[dgreen]

If you don't think Kelly was a special player, you just don't know football. Sorry, I have no other explanation. He was a clear cut 1st ballot HOF player.

Here are all the 1st ballot HOFers at QB:Bart StarrJohnny UnitasGeorge BlandaRoger StaubachTerry BradshawDan FoutsJoe MontanaJim KellyJohn ElwayDan MarinoSteve YoungTroy AikmanWarren MoonIf I were to rank them, I'd probably only put Kelly above Blanda (and he made it in for more than his QB play).

 

[fred_1_15301]

How so? Was it the last few years of Boomer's career? Kelly's 5 year peak could not match Boomer from 85 - 89.

Esiason 85-89:

1985	24	CIN	QB	15	14	251	431	58.2	3443	27	6.3	12	2.8	68	8.0	7.4	13.7	229.5	93.2	32	289	6.8	6.2	6.91986	25	CIN	QB	16	16	273	469	58.2	3959	24	5.1	17	3.6	57	8.4	7.3	14.5	247.4	87.7	26	194	7.6	6.5	5.31987	26	CIN	QB	12	12	240	440	54.5	3321	16	3.6	19	4.3	61	7.5	6.0	13.8	276.8	73.1	26	209	6.7	5.2	5.61988	27	CIN	QB	16	16	223	388	57.5	3572	28	7.2	14	3.6	86	9.2	8.3	16.0	223.3	97.4	30	245	8.0	7.1	7.21989	28	CIN	QB	16	15	258	455	56.7	3525	28	6.2	11	2.4	74	7.7	7.3	13.7	220.3	92.1	36	288	6.6	6.2	7.3

TOTAL: 1245 comp, 2183 att, 57%, 17,820 yards, 123 TDs, 73 INTsKelly 89-93:

1989	29	BUF	QB	13	13	228	391	58.3	3130	25	6.4	18	4.6	78	8.0	6.6	13.7	240.8	86.2	30	216	6.9	5.6	7.11990	30	BUF	QB	14	14	219	346	63.3	2829	24	6.9	9	2.6	71	8.2	7.7	12.9	202.1	101.2	20	158	7.3	6.8	5.51991	31	BUF	QB	15	15	304	474	64.1	3844	33	7.0	17	3.6	77	8.1	7.2	12.6	256.3	97.6	31	227	7.2	6.3	6.11992	32	BUF	QB	16	16	269	462	58.2	3457	23	5.0	19	4.1	65	7.5	6.1	12.9	216.1	81.2	20	145	6.9	5.6	4.11993	33	BUF	QB	16	16	288	470	61.3	3382	18	3.8	18	3.8	65	7.2	5.9	11.7	211.4	79.9	25	171	6.5	5.2	5.1

TOTAL: 1308 comp, 2143 att, 61%, 16,642 yards, 123TDs, 81 INTsKelly had a higher completion %, same # TDs, 8 more INTs (1.6/year). I don't see how you can stand by your statement at all.

Based on the stats that you just posted, Esiason is much better. he had a better td/int ratio, better rating, more yards and more yds/completion.

I see you like to follow people around, just to be a troll. Either way, any sensible football fan would not draw the conclusion you did. Better passer rating? Esiason never broke 100 in a season, Kelly did. Kelly never had a passer rating of 73, Esiason did. In fact, Esiason's avg rating was 88.7, Kelly's was 89.2 - so you're just wrong on that account.TD/INT ratio was almost the same, Esiason, .59, Kelly .65.Yards per attempt, I tihnk a few other people already noted that it's a joke of a stat in comparing QBs. So go troll somewhere else.

Would you please just give it a rest..... ? I get it ....anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. We're done now.

 

[switz]

Moon was nowhere near the overall QB Kelly was, as much as I respect Moon, his stats are very overinflated by the run and shoot.

Couldn't let this slide. Moon threw for over 4200 yards twice in Minnesota, at age 38 and 39, and for 3678/25 in Seattle at age 41. He clearly was a great QB, run and shoot or not. I would probably agree that Kelly was better, but IMO it was much closer than you suggest.

Can't the same thing be said about Kelly and the K-gun?

The K-Gun was still a standard pro-set. It was just no huddle and Kelly called a lot of his own plays. Completely different from the run and shoot.As for people saying the criteria for the HOF should limit some of these guys, why can't they all be that good? Class of '83 (?) was acknowledged as one of the best QB classes EVER. So you would expect quite a few guys from that class to be great, which they were.

Anyone saying Elway doesn't belong is crazy. Marino, though I don't care for him as a person, is obviously a HOFer. Kelly was the heart that moved the Bills. He is a clear HOFer. I believe Young was good, but far more borderline than any of those guys. Esiason was a good QB, just not HOF. Moon was a good QB as well, but his stats get discounted by many due to his system. Aikman doesn't belong in the HOF at all.

But realistically, we had some great QBs in that era. It's not like now where there's Manning and Brady, and then everyone else.

For a few years there was Favre, and ??? Warner had a couple years. Culpepper had a few great years. McNabb showed hope at one time.

Maybe I'm just old and senile and forgetting some recently great QBs. There are some up and comers now, with potential. None have sustained greatness yet.

 

[switz]

If you don't think Kelly was a special player, you just don't know football. Sorry, I have no other explanation. He was a clear cut 1st ballot HOF player.

Here are all the 1st ballot HOFers at QB:Bart StarrJohnny UnitasGeorge BlandaRoger StaubachTerry BradshawDan FoutsJoe MontanaJim KellyJohn ElwayDan MarinoSteve YoungTroy AikmanWarren MoonIf I were to rank them, I'd probably only put Kelly above Blanda (and he made it in for more than his QB play).

Really? Did people here just not watch much of Kelly, or is he one of those guys people like to hate?Aikman? Have you looked at his numbers? Did you watch him play? He doens't even belong IN the HOF.Moon? Great QB, probably does belong in there, just feel he was more a product of run-n-shoot, though he was a good QB.Bradshaw? Great guy, not the reason for the Steelers success. Not the best QB by any stretch.Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.I'd put Kelly in before all 4, and I wouldn't put Aikman in at all.

 

[SR388]

With out getting too deep into this...

Boomer has some pretty good talent in his day, but clearly not what Kelly had. Jim Kelly is one of the most underrated passers of his time. The difference between the two? 4 Super Bowl appearances that obviously include a ton of playoff wins.

I also grow tired of the Aikman doesn't belong crap. He was a leader, he was tough as nails, and he had one of if not the most accurate arm ever. He didn't put up huge TD and passing yards because he had a TD and yardage hog by the name of Emmitt Smith and possibly the best collection of run blocking offensive linemen ever assembled.

It's no coincidence that Emmitt is the NFL's all time leader in rushing yards, career leader in rushing attempts, and ranks 2nd all time behind Jerry Rice among career TD's. He had 21,564 yards from the line of scrimmage, making him (one of only four players in NFL history to go over 21,000-combined yards)

I remember back in the day, they used to put up the stats for how much of a percentage of his teams offense he accounted for and it was just insane. Something like 65% or higher.

 

[dgreen]

If you don't think Kelly was a special player, you just don't know football. Sorry, I have no other explanation. He was a clear cut 1st ballot HOF player.

Here are all the 1st ballot HOFers at QB:Bart StarrJohnny UnitasGeorge BlandaRoger StaubachTerry BradshawDan FoutsJoe MontanaJim KellyJohn ElwayDan MarinoSteve YoungTroy AikmanWarren MoonIf I were to rank them, I'd probably only put Kelly above Blanda (and he made it in for more than his QB play).

Really? Did people here just not watch much of Kelly, or is he one of those guys people like to hate?

Can't say that I saw too much of him. Then again, I haven't seen Starr or Bradshaw play much either. But, I'm definitely not a Kelly hater.

Aikman? Have you looked at his numbers? Did you watch him play? He doens't even belong IN the HOF.

Numbers don't tell the Aikman story. Yes, I saw him play plenty. I thought he was great.

Moon? Great QB, probably does belong in there, just feel he was more a product of run-n-shoot, though he was a good QB.

One of the best pure passers.

Bradshaw? Great guy, not the reason for the Steelers success. Not the best QB by any stretch.

I honestly don't know too much about him. But, from everything I hear and read, he was great.

Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.

You seem to be way too focused on the system. If Young was the product of the system, then I'll gladly take Young and put him in that system. You'd have an extremely hard time convincing most people that Kelly > Young. Young is in most people's top 10, while Kelly isn't. I'd guess a poll would result in about 75% voting for Young, and that may be low.

 

[MarshallRob]

Just comparing these two guys, you would have to say they are pretty much equal.Kelly would be 6a and Esiason would be 6b in the qb rankings of their era (mid 80’s to mid 90’s) 1. Elway 2. Marino3. Young4. Moon5. Aikman

I can see an argument for Marino and Elway above Kelly. Elway however, despite a longer career, finished behind Kelly in career overalls in a number of areas. Marino owned most passing records for a long time, but wasn't a team leader, and as a QB I think that matters.Moon was nowhere near the overall QB Kelly was, as much as I respect Moon, his stats are very overinflated by the run and shoot.Young I don't consider a contemporary, as he really just overlapped the end of Kelly's career. Aikman the same.However even if you include Aikman, he was NOWHERE NEAR belonging on this list at all. He was successful for three reasons: Emmitt Smith and the OL, the Cowboys D, and the Michael Irvin push off. He threw over 20 TDs ONCE in his entire career. For 25% of his career, he threw more INTs than TDs. The guy is totally a product of his team.

I get the argument that Aikman may have inordinately benefitted from his great running game but why wouldn't the same argument apply to Jim Kelly? He had a Hall of Fame running back too, Thurman Thomas, and an offensive line loaded with All-Pros (Wolford, Hull, Ballard, Ritcher).

 

[switz]

I get the argument that Aikman may have inordinately benefitted from his great running game but why wouldn't the same argument apply to Jim Kelly? He had a Hall of Fame running back too, Thurman Thomas, and an offensive line loaded with All-Pros (Wolford, Hull, Ballard, Ritcher).

I guess, from my POV... Aikman wasn't very good. His team did well because of the running game and the defense. While Dallas had a great running game, Aikman still didn't put up great stats, even though most teams defended primarily against the run. Aikman still 25% of his career thre more INTs than TDs. To me that's pretty bad, especially considering those weren't situation where he was expected to carry the team, and they were picks due to forced throws. Aikman makes it into the hall purely because his team won so many SVs, and QBs tend to get all the credit.On the other hand, Kelly also had a good running game, but despite that, teams played the Bills to defend the pass, and Kelly still put up great numbers. He was still "the guy" when the team needed a win, and he carried through. He was part of the reason the team won, instead of just being there for the ride.I watched quite a bit of both teams during those players heydays, and to me, the difference is night and day between the two. The Cowboys were a far better team IMO, but Kelly was the far better QB.I think the numbers paint a pretty good picture of the kind of QB that Aikman was, but it's still just my opinion. I tihnk he gets in the hall on the merit of the Cowboys, not on his own merit. I'm sure some would say the same about Kelly though, so, I dunno.I still think anyone watching football back then got to view quite a number of excellent QBs.

 

[Tau837]

If you don't think Kelly was a special player, you just don't know football. Sorry, I have no other explanation. He was a clear cut 1st ballot HOF player.

Here are all the 1st ballot HOFers at QB:Bart StarrJohnny UnitasGeorge BlandaRoger StaubachTerry BradshawDan FoutsJoe MontanaJim KellyJohn ElwayDan MarinoSteve YoungTroy AikmanWarren MoonIf I were to rank them, I'd probably only put Kelly above Blanda (and he made it in for more than his QB play).

Really? Did people here just not watch much of Kelly, or is he one of those guys people like to hate?Aikman? Have you looked at his numbers? Did you watch him play? He doens't even belong IN the HOF.Moon? Great QB, probably does belong in there, just feel he was more a product of run-n-shoot, though he was a good QB.Bradshaw? Great guy, not the reason for the Steelers success. Not the best QB by any stretch.Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.I'd put Kelly in before all 4, and I wouldn't put Aikman in at all.

You are embarassing yourself here.

 

[KellysHeroes]

The 4 AFC championships in a row is an amazing stat.... the success in the Playoffs pushes Kelly way past The Boom.

 

[Koya]

I will tell you who is not on any of these lists but should be (and yes, I AM a homer, but that is also why I could recognize the greatness): Phil Simms.

If Parcells didnt screw him by going with Hostetler, Simms would quite possibly have two SB rings and be in.

If Simms was not on a defense first, defense second, running third and fourth team, his numbers would have been significantly better.

If simms has a WR that could even SNIFF a pro bowl rather than years of Stacey Robinson, "Touchdown" Baker, Phil "hey, he's white" McConkey and Lionel "actually the best of this group... by far" Manuel, he would also have better numbers.

But, playing in the windy Meadowlands with no tools around him (except an uber solid bavaro) in the passing game on a team that ran ran ran and played defense the guy was what a QB should be - a true leader and a true winner.

Now, I dont expect him to get in and because of the above his career does not merit the HoF, but on talent and ablity Simms should be in this conversation.

It turns out the 49ers wanted to draft Simms when the Giants took him... had Simms thrown to Taylor and Rice, it would be all but guaranteed that he would have put up HoF numbers.

 

[thecatch]

Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.

Please, Kelly isn't close statistically to Young, and if Young didn't pass the 'eye test' for a HOFer than none of these guys have any business being in. You were doing well before you tried to rope all these other guys into the argument

 

[Despyzer]

Way too many quarterbacks make it into the hall IMO. Neither one of these guys deserves to be in the hall imo. Kelly was never even close to being the best qb of his era.

This is probably the best post in this thread so far.

 

[Dexter Manley]

How can anyone possibly think Aikman > Kelly? Did you guys even watch the games when these 2 both played? Replace Aikman with Kelly on those Dallas teams, and they still win 3, maybe even 4 Super Bowls. Replace Kelly with Aikman on those Bills teams, and it's highly unlikely Buffalo even makes it to a single Super Bowl.

Seriously, Bernie Kosar, for example, was a significantly better qb than Aikman, and he has no business being in the HOF. Once guys like Aikman were let in it seriously cheapened the HOF. Inducting Aikman into the HOF, is like throwing up Jimmy Carter or GWB's mug as the 5th head on Mt. Rushmore.

 

[dgreen]

Seriously, Bernie Kosar, for example, was a significantly better qb than Aikman...

Stop.

 

[switz]

If you don't think Kelly was a special player, you just don't know football. Sorry, I have no other explanation. He was a clear cut 1st ballot HOF player.

Here are all the 1st ballot HOFers at QB:Bart StarrJohnny UnitasGeorge BlandaRoger StaubachTerry BradshawDan FoutsJoe MontanaJim KellyJohn ElwayDan MarinoSteve YoungTroy AikmanWarren MoonIf I were to rank them, I'd probably only put Kelly above Blanda (and he made it in for more than his QB play).

Really? Did people here just not watch much of Kelly, or is he one of those guys people like to hate?Aikman? Have you looked at his numbers? Did you watch him play? He doens't even belong IN the HOF.Moon? Great QB, probably does belong in there, just feel he was more a product of run-n-shoot, though he was a good QB.Bradshaw? Great guy, not the reason for the Steelers success. Not the best QB by any stretch.Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.I'd put Kelly in before all 4, and I wouldn't put Aikman in at all.

You are embarassing yourself here.

Glad you had something to add. Generally I respect your posts JWB, but if anyone should be embarrassed, it's you. Sinking to a personal attack because you disagree? That's pathetic.What do you disagree with?

 

[switz]

Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.

Please, Kelly isn't close statistically to Young, and if Young didn't pass the 'eye test' for a HOFer than none of these guys have any business being in. You were doing well before you tried to rope all these other guys into the argument

Young in Tampa did nothing. SF was a great team BEFORE Young arrived.

 

[SR388]

Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.

Please, Kelly isn't close statistically to Young, and if Young didn't pass the 'eye test' for a HOFer than none of these guys have any business being in. You were doing well before you tried to rope all these other guys into the argument

Young in Tampa did nothing. SF was a great team BEFORE Young arrived.

Are you seriously using Young's time in TAMPA BAY against him? That entire organization was an embarrassment and he was fresh out of the defunct USFL.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Seriously, Bernie Kosar, for example, was a significantly better qb than Aikman...

Stop.

You think Aikman could lead either of those 2 Browns teams to the AFC championship game? Seriously? Aikman was basically an unmitigated disaster at qb when Emmitt Smith wasn't in the lineup. Remember the season Emmitt held out for the first 2 games? Dallas went 0 - 2. And IIRC, that was also the year Dallas was losing to the Packers late in the nfccg, and fortunately for the Cowboys Aikman left with an injury and was replaced by a venerable Bernie Kosar who led them to a comeback victory.

 

[switz]

Young? Totally a product of the system, and was a running QB which people liked. Gritty. Tough. Better QB than Kelly? No way.

Please, Kelly isn't close statistically to Young, and if Young didn't pass the 'eye test' for a HOFer than none of these guys have any business being in. You were doing well before you tried to rope all these other guys into the argument

Young in Tampa did nothing. SF was a great team BEFORE Young arrived.

Are you seriously using Young's time in TAMPA BAY against him? That entire organization was an embarrassment and he was fresh out of the defunct USFL.

I recognize that TB was in shambles, but other QBs have been in similar circumstances and were still very good. His USFL career wasn't very good either. The 49ers acquired him as a backup, not as starter material. He learned their system for 5 years before starting. He played for 13 year, (14 including USFL) and had 7 good years. Young was great in SF, because he was in SF.I didn't say he wasn't a good QB, just that he wasn't better than Kelly. I stand by that.