I think you are misinterpreting my comments about Parker. I am not saying he isnt up to first grade or that he isnt well thought of. I was merely pointing out that he has had very limited first grade experience and we still dont know at that level how good he will become. For that reason I wouldn't, if I was choosing, replace Kelly with Parker, unless through injury, because better to have someone who has been proving his worth at first grade, even if many supporters question the quality of his performances, with someone yet to prove his worth at this level.
In the end Parker may be better, but lets not rush it just because some arent totally enamoured by a young guy in his first year. I remember watching week by week a young Bob Fulton in his first year. He was of course younger, but he was at best solid with occasional flashes of brilliance. Manly's star was Frank Stanton in those days, and in 1966 he was streets better than Fulton. But Fulton benefited from that first year and within two years was showing how exceptional he would become. No one thought to drop him because his play was for the most part just satisfactory. He needed that year of experience to help make him become what he became. Let Kelly learn the trade against the best. If he doesnt make it, at least he's had the opportunity. But for now he's in my mind better than most first year players