Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I think the mistake with Bledsoe was resigning him this off-season because I think we are pretty cap committed to sticking with him next season. If he played like he did early in the season then it makes it palatable though gnarly to bite the bullet and cut him after June 1st, however his team having put up a winning record oversll and having blown out the average to lesser teams in the league means he will stay. I think the deal for Bledsoe was a wash through this off-season with Bledsoe meriting his pro bowl mod on a squad which improved from 3-13 to 8-8 but he positively sucked last year. I look for a a hoped for fair competition between Bledsoe and Losman next year in camp but I fear neither is ready to lead this team to glory. The problems I have with Losman's game are both the problems of any rookie which can be improved by playing but also some mechanical issues that I think off-field preparation and repetive practice are going to be a lead in solving. In addition to these two, if we can find a vet QB of better quality than Matthews to be our third QB I think we would be doing very well for out situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Christ, it is going to be a long off-season, and it hasn't even been over for 24hrs yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 What 3 would you have picked? In 2002 we could have had:Patrick Ramsey Josh McCown David Garrard In 2003...well not much. Maybe Chris Simms. Who is it you'd have picked instead? I haven't seen success really from any rookie that would have been available to the Bills. 189977[/snapback] Another option is we could of signed Jeff Blake and not lost the draft pick used to acquire Bledsoe. Of course no telling whether Price would have flourished as he did so maybe we don't get Atlanta's pick. Which would give us the 14th pick in the draft instead of the 23rd and the question is would we have taken McGahee, traded down or taken a DE like Michael Haynes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I wouldn't call it a bust but it is time to move on and try JP at the helm. Let the future begin now ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 The main advantage to getting Bledsoe was that his excellent play in the first seven games of 2002 attracted Takeo Spikes and Sam Adams to this team. Compare that to keeping Rob Johnson: Positives for Johnson: - Johnson's QB rating was better than Bledsoe's. - Johnson wouldn't have cost us our 2003 first round pick. - Johnson's backups get a lot of work/experience, because of him always getting hurt. Had Johnson been our QB for 2004, we'd have a better idea about where we stand with Losman. - Johnson was actually fairly good at running. Negatives about keeping Johnson: - Wasn't the same leader as Drew - Wouldn't have played as well in the first seven games of 2002 (might not have played at all due to injury) so we wouldn't have attracted Spikes or Adams. - We really would have had to invest a lot (money, draft picks, whatever) into making sure our backup QB was good. I guess we did this anyway with Losman, so this point doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Getting Bledsoe was a credible move that did not work out. It involved some risk, with some possibility of upside. We've seen more negative from it than positive, but TD did not necessarily make a mistake in taking the chance on Bledsoe. I don't blame him for this one even though I was not crazy about bringing him in when it happened. Hindsight is always 20-20. But now it's time to move on. There's enough of a record over the last three seasons to decide the acquisition did not work and does not promise to work in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Bledsoe had 8 good games in 2002, 2 good games in 2003 and 6 average games in 2004. The other 28 times he was horrible. Time to move on. 189918[/snapback] Quotes like this reinforce why athletes think so little of the sports viewing public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 A huge bust. 2002 wasn't a good year for TD, though I'm glad to see MW come around. 189964[/snapback] Yeah, I do think Williams turned the corner this year but as far as Drew goes I guess the short term sold tickets but those same people now feel a bit betrayed by Drew for consistently failing in games that he needs to play well, so overall it's a failure. For every failure their seems to be a sucessful selection like Willis. That was a huge chance that only TD was willing to take and a lot of teams now wish they had done the same. As far as I'm concerned he was the MAIN reason for the turnaround. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Yeah, I do think Williams turned the corner this year but as far as Drew goes I guess the short term sold tickets but those same people now feel a bit betrayed by Drew for consistently failing in games that he needs to play well, so overall it's a failure. For every failure their seems to be a sucessful selection like Willis. That was a huge chance that only TD was willing to take and a lot of teams now wish they had done the same. As far as I'm concerned he was the MAIN reason for the turnaround. 190766[/snapback] I feel betrayed by the results produced under Bledsoe last year and this year, but actually feel more "betrayed" by improper use of what seemed to be some fairly obvious strengths and weaknesses that he has as a player. In order for a team to succeed with Bledsoe (I count his mid-90s trip to the SB and his QB play in the majority of a must-win game for the Pats in their SB winning run in the 2001 seasons as successes, if you don't then you should explain to me and interested readers why these were failures by Bledsoe QB'ed teams) I think it is critical to not rely on his extraordinary arm to win games and to use him as a threat and change-up. I think Bledsoe has sucked and done well with his play at about the same level througout his career. I do definitely betrayed by Kevin Killdrive and GW's poor skills in that the overrelied on Bledsoe's arm which produced outstanding results for about half a season until other teams got enough tape on him running the Bills O to dissect it and neutralize him. This effort took on warp speed impact when BB used his knowledge of Bledsoe to really exploit his weaknesses running the Bills O and everybody copied this. I think Killdrive and GW's skills can really be faulted because they refused last year to change things up enough to deal with this problem with the results of a horrendous year last year. Hiring MM has proved to be a great move because he attracted Bobby April here and remade the ST, kept Jerry Gray here and stepped things up a notch on the D, but unfortunately had them take on the too difficult task of reviving the O with a resigned Bledsoe. MM/Clements/Wyche did a phemomenal job of doing this by diversifying the play calling so it was not so pass happy as during the Killrive era (error), limiting the audibles which Bledsoe could call which further limited our pass-happy predictability and simplified the O for the team, and also refound the good part of Bledsoe's abilities as an occaisional rollout passer and even a runner. However, even this effort failed when the going got tough and the ST became a burden on our play with some bad penalties and plays and the D continue to giveth (the Nate Clements INT and other turnovers produced) but also giveth away (the Parker run and some bad D plays). Once again we were back on our heels, over-relied on Bledsoe and some bad things happened. In my mind, the acquisition of Bledsoe remains a wash as he was phenomenal in 2002 and sucked in 2003. The bust was the decision to resign him this year and the expectation hope that a rookie HC was going to be able to get it done with him. They came close than I suspected they would, but did not get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 and how many club seats were renewed in that time? How many season tickets sold? How many games sold out? From a GM's perspective, "success" is not always entirely measured by on-the-field performance (regardless of how you measure said on-field performance). 189942[/snapback] Sooooo, fleece the public, sell them a bill of goods and whistle all the way to the bank? Very short sighted IMO. TD did not bring in DB to fill seats and play football. He brought him in to WIN football games and fill the seats. Two very different things, again IMO. Yes, the Bledsoe experiment has been a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Brees was from 2001 a year prior to Bledsoe and would have meant we'd have lost out on Nate Clements. I kind of think Bills fans would have run Brees out of town a long time ago...don't forget Brees was pretty awful his first 3 years....I don't know how he turned it on this year, but I doubt he'd have gone 23-25 as bledsoe has. 190000[/snapback] Regardless, we should take advantage of SD's stupidity and steal Brees from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Trading for Bledsoe was a horrible idea right from the start as far as I was concerned. After Donahoe pulled the trigger on it, though, I wished I would be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I wasn't wrong. As long as Bledsoe is the starter we will lose twice a year to New England (who is loving every game of this blessed "experiment") and we will never win a playoff game... IF we ever even get to the playoffs. I don't know which Donahoe decision was worse: the trade for Bledsoe, or going with RJ over Flutie. Doug Flutie: He Just WINS!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Trading for Bledsoe was a horrible idea right from the start as far as I was concerned. After Donahoe pulled the trigger on it, though, I wished I would be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I wasn't wrong. As long as Bledsoe is the starter we will lose twice a year to New England (who is loving every game of this blessed "experiment") and we will never win a playoff game... IF we ever even get to the playoffs. I don't know which Donahoe decision was worse: the trade for Bledsoe, or going with RJ over Flutie. Doug Flutie: He Just WINS!!!! 191068[/snapback] Oh Holy Christ on a Stick.... Flutie? Please. How about Brees...no one thinks we could pry him from SD? They HAVE to start their rook, because of the bling thrown his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Oh Holy Christ on a Stick.... Flutie? Please. How about Brees...no one thinks we could pry him from SD? They HAVE to start their rook, because of the bling thrown his way. 191079[/snapback] All I'm saying is that Flutie was better than RJ. Heck at age 42, he's still better than Bledsoe!!! As for Brees, I don't want another "Drew" under center. Or another Rob. Or another #11. Bad Karma, man. Time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 i had and still dont have problems with us acquiring bledsoe...at the time it was the right decision, and it was something this franchise needed... unfortunately, it didnt turn out as we would have hoped, and now its time to move on...i just hope TD understands this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 We should pin this thread so JP Era doesn't have to keep creating a new one every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 All I'm saying is that Flutie was better than RJ. Heck at age 42, he's still better than Bledsoe!!! 191096[/snapback] If the 42-year-old Flutie was playing QB for the Bills yesterday,they would've won the game... and they would've already made the play-offs a week or so ago. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyebrian Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 bledsoe needs to be replaced if we are going anywhere...but i am not looking forward to the 2-steps-backward we'll take when losman takes over. hopefully not too many are deluded into thinking that rothlsdliirenszfidzcxer's success means that you can ride your rookie qb to the superbowl as long as he's drafted in the first round. 190010[/snapback] Yesterday was a great example of how a rookie QB looks good playing on a great team, and not how a great rookie QB makes a team good. How much did Pittsburgh suffer not playing Rothlesberger? Roth is to Pittsburgh as Dilfer was to Baltimore or Johnson was to Tampa Bay. The Bills are not Pittsburgh and need their quarterback to win the occasional game, not just caretake a game and not lose it. I am all for giving JP a shot next year, but HE will not lead THIS team to the promised land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 We should pin this thread so JP Era doesn't have to keep creating a new one every day. 191133[/snapback] Nah. Then all he'd have to do is lick his windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Regardless, we should take advantage of SD's stupidity and steal Brees from them. 191064[/snapback] Ironically, Dallas may spend one of their #1's and obtain Brees in a deal prior to any franchise tagging. Everybody feeling good? TD rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts