Billy Kilmer or Stan Humphries?

[74_75_78_79_]

Who's best between these two Super Bowl QBs?

[Bryan]

Kilmer had a game where he threw for 6 TDs, and he had a game where he ran for 4 TDs. Pretty sure he is the only player in NFL history to accomplish this.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Neither of them was ever the reason their team did well. Kilmer played a lot longer, made more appearances on the end-of-year leaderboards. Humphries was a "good enough for now" type of guy, but that team is one of the worst Super Bowl participants ever. Even then, with their personnel choices that season, you can see them starting to set the table for Dinner With Ryan a few years later.

With Kilmer, there's the same problem as there is for most of the guys from the 1970's. Teams just didn't pass the ball, so it's hard to rate either the QBs or WRs when the sample sizes are so small and the plays being called were so limited.

[BD Sullivan]

Kilmer was able to summon a big game with the Redskins when needed--most of the time. His broken leg with the Niners wrecked his career enough that he eventually got dumped in the expansion draft, where he then had to run for his life for four years.

[JKelly]

Kilmer, Kilmer, Kilmer

What is next Rodney Peete or Norm Snead?

[SixtiesFan]

Kilmer's performance in Super Bowl VII was about as bad as a QB has had in a Super Bowl, especially in a game his team could have won.

[Shipley]

Kilmer, Kilmer, Kilmer

What is next Rodney Peete or Norm Snead?

I was more thinking Gary Cuozzo or Bill Munson?!

[74_75_78_79_]

Kilmer, Kilmer, Kilmer

What is next Rodney Peete or Norm Snead?

I was more thinking Gary Cuozzo or Bill Munson?!

Ha, ha, ha!

No, serious, neither one is a HOF-er but Billy and Stan were fine QBs who started most of their careers, each leading their team to a SB along with numerous playoff appearances. As for who I pick, I guess I lean toward Kilmer as well. He was able to scramble (for TDs as well as yards), garnered a few receiving yards in his career and also did a bit of punting. Definitely a better multi-purpose guy. Stan, however, along with his career being cut significantly shorter than Kilmer's due to concussions has a bit in his favor. He ended his career with a higher passer rating and threw for only 3,000 less than Billy despite lack of longevity over him (yes, less passing going on in Kilmer's era). Stan, FWIW, did win a playoff game outside his Super Bowl year - and with a separated left shoulder to boot.

Those clutch, late-game 43-yard TDs to Pupunu & Martin 2 years later still devastates me!

[superbowlfanatic]

While both were bad as Super Bowl starters, at least Humphries did win a ring as the Redskins backup to Mark Rypien in SB 29.

[74_75_78_79_]

While both were bad as Super Bowl starters, at least Humphries did win a ring as the Redskins backup to Mark Rypien in SB 29.

Yeah and, end of day, who was the better QB after all? I'm sure deep down inside it irks Stan just a little to this day to know that he missed out. It's not as if he was 'years away' from being ready to be a starting QB. Though he may have not had that 'magical', overachieving, play-over-his-head season that Rypien did in '91, sure enough he would have played well enough to still lead Washington to a convincing SB-victory along with still having best-record in league.