Peter Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 All you guys who trash Bledsoe seem so disappointed that he had a good game. It is funny to read your posts that search for all of these reasons why we won the game other than because of Drew. Yet, when we lose, you guys only blame Drew. The fact of the matter is that Drew had a good game. Someone on this board graded him a "C" and claimed that the three TDs were "misleading." That is total BS. He had a good game and you guys know it. We won the game because the "team" played well yesterday. We have lost the games that we lost because the "team" lost those games. The two key stats on offense yesterday were "1" sack and "100 yards" by WM. What does that mean? That means the o-line had a good game. If they have a good game, that allows the so called "skilled position players" to do what they need to do. When they do not have a good game, you can pretty much guess the result. For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game.
stevestojan Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 In this, his best performance of the year, he threw for 185 yards. It's truly sad how low our expectations have gotten.
mead107 Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 i for 1 am glad he had a good game because he is a bill, but time for assdrew to step aside
Rico Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 The fact that Drew put up good numbers yesterday doesn't change the other fact that he needs to leave town ASAP. Like Pete Townshend once said, We won't get fooled again.
mary owen Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 All you guys who trash Bledsoe seem so disappointed that he had a good game. It is funny to read your posts that search for all of these reasons why we won the game other than because of Drew. Yet, when we lose, you guys only blame Drew. The fact of the matter is that Drew had a good game. Someone on this board graded him a "C" and claimed that the three TDs were "deceiving." That is total BS. He had a good game and you guys know it. We won the game because the "team" played well yesterday. We have lost the games that we lost because the "team" lost those games. The two key stats on offense yesterday were "1" sack and "100 yards" by WM. What does that mean? That means the o-line had a good game. If they have a good game, that allows the so called "skilled position players" to do what they need to do. When they do not have a good game, you can pretty much guess the result. For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. 128608[/snapback] can someone post Bledsoe's OVERALL numbers since he's been here. It's too painful for me to do it. Afterall, we can't judge him on 1 game (or two), now can we?
stevestojan Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 The fact that Drew put up good numbers yesterdaydoesn't change the other fact that he needs to leave town ASAP. Like Pete Townshend once said, We won't get fooled again. 128616[/snapback] and like the Rosen Test Dummies said: "mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm" chew on that one for a minute....
Peter Posted November 22, 2004 Author Posted November 22, 2004 Like Pete Townshend once said, We won't get fooled again. 128616[/snapback] Pete also said - "Who the f*** are you?' Sorry, I could not resist. No offense.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 What will really matter is how the team, and Bledsoe, perform on the road in the next two weeks.
mead107 Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 All you guys who trash Bledsoe seem so disappointed that he had a good game. It is funny to read your posts that search for all of these reasons why we won the game other than because of Drew. Yet, when we lose, you guys only blame Drew. The fact of the matter is that Drew had a good game. Someone on this board graded him a "C" and claimed that the three TDs were "deceiving." That is total BS. He had a good game and you guys know it. We won the game because the "team" played well yesterday. We have lost the games that we lost because the "team" lost those games. The two key stats on offense yesterday were "1" sack and "100 yards" by WM. What does that mean? That means the o-line had a good game. If they have a good game, that allows the so called "skilled position players" to do what they need to do. When they do not have a good game, you can pretty much guess the result. For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. 128608[/snapback] notice how you say good game
d_wag Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 All you guys who trash Bledsoe seem so disappointed that he had a good game. It is funny to read your posts that search for all of these reasons why we won the game other than because of Drew. Yet, when we lose, you guys only blame Drew. The fact of the matter is that Drew had a good game. Someone on this board graded him a "C" and claimed that the three TDs were "deceiving." That is total BS. He had a good game and you guys know it. We won the game because the "team" played well yesterday. We have lost the games that we lost because the "team" lost those games. The two key stats on offense yesterday were "1" sack and "100 yards" by WM. What does that mean? That means the o-line had a good game. If they have a good game, that allows the so called "skilled position players" to do what they need to do. When they do not have a good game, you can pretty much guess the result. For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. 128608[/snapback] here here........quite sad to see posters too stubborn to actually give the guy credit after p*ssing on him week in and week out.......
nodnarb Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 oh STFU. This has never been about "Bledsoe Bashing" This has been about HONEST OBSERVATIONS OVER TIME. Drew hasn't played at a "high level" since the middle of 2002. People like you see a decent game against a horrid defense with nobodies in the secondary after two key injuries...at home...and all of a sudden Bledsoe has resurrected himself? PLEEEEEEEZ That's how low the expectations have become. Drew throws 55% with 180 yards and it's great as long as we win. Special teams and defense had MUCH more to do with this win than BLedsoe. Look at our average drive starts. We gave him a start at the 3 yard line. I'd rather look at the rest of the data. The average rating. the completion percentage since December 2002. The TD/INT ratio. The win/loss record. The missed reads, the fumbles (most by a QB in the NFL in that span), the failure to see the field, the inaccurate "easy throws", etc. I say all this yet I really, *really* like Drew and wish the best for him.
Mark VI Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. 128608[/snapback] Wait until we see that #11 road jersey. That's usually when the Barney Fife persona raises it's ugly head.
stuckincincy Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 I'd rather look at the rest of the data. The average rating. the completion percentage since December 2002. The TD/INT ratio. The win/loss record. The missed reads, the fumbles (most by a QB in the NFL in that span), the failure to see the field, the inaccurate "easy throws", etc. I say all this yet I really, *really* like Drew and wish the best for him. 128632[/snapback] Yep. BTW, congrats on your pre-game prognostications!
Matt in KC Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 can someone post Bledsoe's OVERALL numbers since he's been here. It's too painful for me to do it. Afterall, we can't judge him on 1 game (or two), now can we? 128618[/snapback] Sorry the formatting sucks....Overall, he's playing about the same as he always has (except his phenom 2002 start). PASSING Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate 1993 New England Patriots 13 12 429 214 49.9 2494 5.81 54 15 15 16/99 32 5 65.0 1994 New England Patriots 16 16 691 400 57.9 4555 6.59 62 25 27 22/139 52 3 73.6 1995 New England Patriots 15 15 636 323 50.8 3507 5.51 47 13 16 23/170 34 2 63.7 1996 New England Patriots 16 16 623 373 59.9 4086 6.56 84 27 15 30/190 45 3 83.7 1997 New England Patriots 16 16 522 314 60.2 3706 7.10 76 28 15 30/258 47 12 87.7 1998 New England Patriots 14 14 481 263 54.7 3633 7.55 86 20 14 36/295 50 15 80.9 1999 New England Patriots 16 16 539 305 56.6 3985 7.39 68 19 21 55/342 50 13 75.6 2000 New England Patriots 16 16 531 312 58.8 3291 6.20 59 17 13 45/264 33 4 77.3 2001 New England Patriots 2 2 66 40 60.6 400 6.06 58 2 2 5/21 4 1 75.3 2002 Buffalo Bills 16 16 610 375 61.5 4359 7.15 73 24 15 54/369 45 13 86.0 2003 Buffalo Bills 16 16 471 274 58.2 2860 6.07 54 11 12 49/371 28 2 73.0 2004 Buffalo Bills 10 10 264 148 56.1 1736 6.58 65 12 11 26/152 19 6 74.0 TOTAL 166 165 5863 3341 57.0 38612 6.59 86 213 176 391/2670 439 79 76.6 http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1041
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 I think some Bills fans may be upset because for every decent game that Bledsoe has in what is now a lost '04 season, the '05 season is hurt that much because Losman will have that much less experience when he's starting next year. They're not mad at Bledsoe for playing somewhat competently, they mad because they know that management will be blinded by his performance and leave him in even though it will stunt the future's growth. But hey, that's just my take.
Guest Guest Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 In this, his best performance of the year, he threw for 185 yards. It's truly sad how low our expectations have gotten. 128614[/snapback] I will start this out by saying I am a Bills supporter..Not Against or for Drew. He had 185 yards because thats all he needed??? If you noticed our offense was not on the field much in the second half and when we were we ran a lot. the special teams negated the need for passing.
DeeRay Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. Help us understand the game. I'm going to help you put things in their proper context. Bledsoe puts up good numbers at home against one of the NFL's worst defenses. Not only that, the Rams were without two starters in their secondary going into the game, then lose two more in their secondary.... My expectation of a 12 year veteran QB being paid $6M/yr would be to "light that secondary up" and he clearly did not. I can clearly see you give more credit to bledsoe for doing what he's paid to do and less credit for a special teams unit that accounted for 17 points and a defense that came up with 2 turnovers inside the Bills 10 yard line to prevent Rams scores. So, what don't we understand about the game?
AirBledsoe11 Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 All you guys who trash Bledsoe seem so disappointed that he had a good game. It is funny to read your posts that search for all of these reasons why we won the game other than because of Drew. Yet, when we lose, you guys only blame Drew. The fact of the matter is that Drew had a good game. Someone on this board graded him a "C" and claimed that the three TDs were "misleading." That is total BS. He had a good game and you guys know it. We won the game because the "team" played well yesterday. We have lost the games that we lost because the "team" lost those games. The two key stats on offense yesterday were "1" sack and "100 yards" by WM. What does that mean? That means the o-line had a good game. If they have a good game, that allows the so called "skilled position players" to do what they need to do. When they do not have a good game, you can pretty much guess the result. For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. 128608[/snapback] Great Post!!!
Peter Posted November 22, 2004 Author Posted November 22, 2004 Help us understand the game. I'm going to help you put things in their proper context. Bledsoe puts up good numbers at home against one of the NFL's worst defenses. Not only that, the Rams were without two starters in their secondary going into the game, then lose two more in their secondary.... My expectation of a 12 year veteran QB being paid $6M/yr would be to "light that secondary up" and he clearly did not. I can clearly see you give more credit to bledsoe for doing what he's paid to do and less credit for a special teams unit that accounted for 17 points and a defense that came up with 2 turnovers inside the Bills 10 yard line to prevent Rams scores. So, what don't we understand about the game? 128701[/snapback] Pretty simple, many of you guys blame him (and only him) when the Bills lose without regard to everything else that is happening on the field. For example, after the Oakland game, numerous people blamed Drew for being sacked 7 times. I broke down the tape and looked at each play on which he was sacked. I posted my analysis here. On each of the sacks, the protection broke down miserably. In most cases, there were two seconds between the time the ball was snapped and when the play blew up. Yet, so many people here insisted it was all Drew's fault. That is one example. It is a team game. In my view, the game is won or lost on the line of scrimmage. Take it out of the passing context. How many times does WM have first contact with a defender at or behind the line of scrimmage. What does that tell you about whether the line is opening up holes? Anyway, you (hopefully) get the picture.
OGTEleven Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 All you guys who trash Bledsoe seem so disappointed that he had a good game. It is funny to read your posts that search for all of these reasons why we won the game other than because of Drew. Yet, when we lose, you guys only blame Drew. The fact of the matter is that Drew had a good game. Someone on this board graded him a "C" and claimed that the three TDs were "misleading." That is total BS. He had a good game and you guys know it. We won the game because the "team" played well yesterday. We have lost the games that we lost because the "team" lost those games. The two key stats on offense yesterday were "1" sack and "100 yards" by WM. What does that mean? That means the o-line had a good game. If they have a good game, that allows the so called "skilled position players" to do what they need to do. When they do not have a good game, you can pretty much guess the result. For those of you that are fixated on blaming Drew for everything, you just don't understand the game. 128608[/snapback] The problem with Bledsoe isn't his ability to have good game(s). It is his inability to perform certain tasks required of a QB. This inability ensures that a good season is not really possible. When a defense has a stupid game plan, Bledsoe can exploit it. He still has a very strong arm and can throw deep. What he can't do is think quickly enough to throw slants and short range passes. He has the occasional brain fart that leads to dumb interceptions as well. I could live with the dumb picks, but the lack of the short route puts a crimp in the overall offense. Simon summarized this well in his thread last week. If a team "gives" Bledsoe the short routes and takes away the run along with pressuring him too quickly for the long routes to develop, he is toast. The Bills had some good elements to their game plan yesterday (flee flicker, focus on Campbell, etc) but these are gimmicks that won't last a whole season. The Rams also played into the Bills hands a bit. These things will happen, but not often enough for the Bills to have a good season with Bledsoe. Their are too many smart teams out there.
Recommended Posts