Jim Kelly or Troy Aikman?
doubledragon
Posts: 23,269 ✭✭✭✭✭
You're starting a team, and you have to choose between Jim Kelly and Troy Aikman, both in their prime, who do you choose?
0
Comments
WARNING: The cards pictured above are strictly for viewing entertainment, I do not own them. You've been warned!
Jim Kelly 100%
I've become fixated on 1990s football lately, that's the reason I started this thread. It's a phase I'm going through right now, and I don't expect to grow out of it anytime soon!
I have both those cards in PSA9’s. Actually purchased the 89 score set in 90 for $15. All the top rookies graded 9. Kelly was a gift from a board member 10 years ago. I saw both careers and as a life long Bills fan I’d pick Jim. Hopefully we’ll have this same conversation 10 years from now Mahomes or Allen after they each have multiple Super Bowl wins.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
1990’s football was the last great decade of good football without all the crazy rules, and less video game scores in my opinion. Great era even thought the Pats were awful
That's ok, you guys made up for the 90s pretty good. 😂😂
VERY tough choice!
Aikman's 4 year best (prime?) was better than Kelly's, but not by much. Kelly had a longer peak with 7 very solid years in a row.
Both guys were surrounded by great teams. The Cowboys were awful in Aikman's first year and so was he.
One advantage I see is Troy had a lot less interceptions after his first 2 seasons.
Kelly threw for more touchdowns and never had a bad year.
Narrowing it down to their "prime" I would give Aikman a strong edge, especially if you look at his postseason numbers 1992-1995 (also his best regular season years), but looking at their entire careers, regular season only, Kelly was a little better and more consistent.
I don't often use post season numbers in comparing players, but here it does make sense. Both players were in multiple Super Bowls and actually played against each other twice.
In looking at Buffalo's 4 year post season run, it becomes obvious that Kelly was great in about 3 games out of 10 (including his first 2 in 1991), he was pretty bad in 1992 was not a factor (didn't play in 3 playoff games with a knee injury) in 1993, in 1994 he was pretty good in the playoffs, but not so good in the SB.
Moving to Dallas they went to, and won, 3 SB's in 4 years and Aikman was pretty unbelievable in the playoffs! In 9 of 11 post season games Troy had a rating of over 100, with 4 games at 120 or above and 2 of those games at 140!
He outperformed Kelly in both of Dallas' SB wins over Buffalo. Troy also beat a pretty good QB in the playoffs every year by the name of Brett Favre.
I am really glad the OP started this thread.
After hearing so many posters bash Aikman, I was beginning to think he was an average QB on a great team. He was a very, very good player on a very, very good team and he played superbly in the playoffs during his prime! Unfortunately for Troy, that was it. He didn't have any good playoff performances after 1996.
Kelly had as many HOFers helping him as Troy, with Andre Reed, James Lofton, Thurman Thomas, Cornelius Bennett and Bruce Smith. Buffalo also had a couple of very good offensive linemen in Kent Hull and Jim Ritcher.
I'll go with Aikman. Just based on Super Bowl appearances. I know there's more to it than that. Always thought Aikman had a chance to win the big one and he did.....once? Never thought Kelly stood a chance. And he didn't disappoint. Four games no wins. Just like Tarkenton. A star during the regular season then Zippo. I know, Kelly is a great guy and he played for a team in the Northeast and that counts for a lot hype wise. And I know that Aikman didn't go deep like the great ones. He didn't have to. And I know he was a so so QB playing on a great team, etc., etc. I'll go with Aikman. He was better when it counted.
Kelly is the better, more talented QB. Put him in Dallas during that era and the he wins 3 Super Bowls instead of losing 4.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Both were 0 for the SB. Fran was only in 3. Tarkenton also had a lot less to work with on offense. Chuck Foreman was a good back but doesn't compare to Thurman Thomas and John Gilliam and Sammy White, while nice players, weren't as good as Andre Reed, James Loften and Don Beebe.
Tarkenton might have the record for lowest QB Rate in a SB in SB9 against the Steelers at 14.1 and Foreman could only rush for 18 yards on 12 carries.
Vikings were terrible on offense in all their SB losses. They never scored a point in the 1st half of any of their SB games!
He won three.
@doubledragon If you had asked me this question before I moved to the Dallas area in 2006, I would have said Kelly. And maybe that is still the right answer. But I am going to choose Aikman. I have heard enough anecdotally from Cowboys players and insiders to convince me that Aikman is the choice here.
Yea, I hear you. Maybe that's what got to me also. I worked a lot in and around Dallas in the 90's. Two or three months a year. Went to many games there. Those Cowboy fans.....nothing like 'em. Best just to agree that the Cowboys are God's gift to mankind or get out of town.
Maybe, but I doubt it. There's no way of knowing.
Aikman played much better in the playoffs and SB than he did in the regular season 1992-1995. Kelly played worse in the playoffs. Kelly's QB rate in the SB was 82, 45, 59, 67.
Both teams were loaded, I don't see where there would be that much difference. Where do you see the big advantage for Dallas? Their defense?
The OP asks who you would want in their prime.
Aikman gets downgraded because he had great players and won, yet Kelly gets rated higher because he had great players and lost?
Makes no sense to me.
Aikman was very good but not great. He had arguably the best OL in history up front and Smith and Irvin. Kelly did have Thomas but does anyone rank Thomas close to Smith? I don't. Same with Irvin over Reed. Football is a team sport and QBs often get too much credit for winning and too much blame for losing. Dallas was clearly the better overall team during this era and that's not due to Aikman, no offense to Troy. I don't think that's even debatable. I would still take Kelly over Aikman if I were choosing one over the other. Makes perfect sense to me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Tim! Good to see you buddy 👍👍🍻
Thanks, Paul! Hope all is well with you and Merry Christmas, buddy! Need some silver dollars in the stocking this year!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
count me in the kelly camp. what an arm he had. his statistics would have been better had he gone right into the nfl from college.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I would choose Jim Kelly if the goal was to play in the Super Bowl.
I would choose Troy Aikman if the goal was to WIN the Super Bowl.
Definitely lol and same to you and your family 🍻
It was a shame about that 1990 Super Bowl, coming down to Norwoods missed field goal. It's a dirty line of work, field goal kicking. A teams entire season, all the hard work they put in, the offseason work, the practices, the film rooms, the weight rooms, the preparation, the blood, the sweat, and the tears, and it comes down to a man's right leg. It's the damnest thing.
Well said Double D
and it comes down to a man's right leg. It's the damnest thing.
this is a misleading conclusion. I suppose if you went back and reviewed the entire 1990 Buffalo Bills season that it would be an almost certainty that the Bills were where they were BECAUSE of the kicker. earlier in the thread grot commented about QB's getting too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses, I would say it's even more extreme for kickers. moving the PAT back only highlights things.
imagine being a kicker on a miserable day, temp around freezing with rain/sleet/snow all game. he's been in the game for about 40 seconds total, several kick-offs, a couple PAT's and maybe a FG. he's spent the afternoon freezing his ass off under one of those ponchos and has had to be ready at any time. after standing along the sidelines for most of the second half he is suddenly called upon to make a 45 yard Field Goal that will determine the outcome of the game as the final seconds tick off the clock!!!
as fans, we become inured to the mechanics of this simple looking play. maybe the snap is high, low or off center a little bit. maybe the holder doesn't have the ball oriented just right, maybe the kicker slips just enough to be affected but not enough for us to notice. maybe he doesn't hit the ball perfectly square or the wind gusts or shifts as the play unfolds.
no matter, the only thing that matters is if he makes it and he's the only one who gets credit or bears the blame when "he" misses. I actually admire kickers and I don't think I've ever heard one try to blame anything but themselves. to be honest, it really shines a light on the guys who always seem to succeed. the guy who comes to mind is Stephen Gostkowski, a pretty good kicker of Irish descent!!!
in his career he hasn't missed very many FG's and PAT's, but I'd bet if you talked to him for awhile he could remember most of them, especially the ones that meant a loss.
Ever seen the Vikings luck in those situations? Not in a SB but in a couple of NFC championship games.
The worst was the 1998 game against Atlanta, Gary Anderson hadn't missed a kick ALL YEAR until then!
That's an interesting speculation, not sure how you arrive at it though.
Buffalo was horrible in 1984 and 1985. I would think if he played for those teams his stats would be worse.
This argument seems an awful lot like a Philip Rivers versus Eli Manning argument. Rivers was more talented but Eli got it done multiple times when it counted most in high leverage situations. Tough to call that one.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS