Mark VI Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Mods, can we have a sticky thread where all Drew comments go and then delete any post about Drew outside of that one thread? 194163[/snapback] Would you also like your bunny slippers and your pipe ?
Fezmid Posted January 5, 2005 Author Posted January 5, 2005 Would you also like your bunny slippers and your pipe ? 194414[/snapback] Well, if you're offering... CW
Fezmid Posted January 5, 2005 Author Posted January 5, 2005 dude... you shouldn't have gone there.... you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper. Flutie's played 11 NFL seasons and has had a QB rating of 80.0 or above in 6 of those 11 seasons. Bledsoe's played 12 NFL seasons and has only heat the 80.0 or above rating 4 times. Flutie hit the 80.0 or higher QB rating in 2 of his 3 seasons with the Bills Bledsoe hit the 80.0 or higher QB rating in 1 of his 3 seasons with the Bills. I know, I know.... your reply is going to have some sort of but, but, but comment. Anything to absolve Bledsoe from any sin. 194409[/snapback] I'll bite. but, but, but, in those "seasons" where he had a QB rating over 80, he played in more than 7 games only twice. I mean come on, you're going to count throwing 25 passes as a "season?" EDIT: I don't think I've ever started a thread that's gotten this much attention before... And it wasn't even intentional! CW
AKC Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 On one side, you have 1 million fans that are logical and smart and realize Bledsoe's a loser. Then, on the other side you have a few hundred stupid people that continue to apologize for Bledose 194229[/snapback] If you and these "logical and smart" fans owned a team the roster would include 14 QBs, all of whom would rotate for playing time because not a single one of the owners would understand the game of football well enough to grasp that the QB is no more important a player on the field than the other 10 guys who play with him on offense at any time. Maybe I can't use that- chances are your team would regularly try to field 12 and 13 guys to line up on offense! (and considering your obsession with the position probably two of them would be QBs!) I'm still waiting for your "logical and smart" answer to my incredibly simple question- if you think high priced offensive stars who have never won a big game have no place on our roster, how do you dispose of Eric Moulds this offseason, the highest paid underperformer on our offense in 2004 slated to earn over 8 million in '05?
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 When was the last time Bledsoe threw for 300 yards in a game?
Realist Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I'm not a Bledsoe apologist or hater, at this time I'm up in the air about the QB situation, I need to seperate myself from Sunday's game a little more before I really get into it. However here is a good article that states a case for Bledsoe. Its on the front page of TBD from Bob Dicesare of the Buffalo News. Sorry if its been posted before. Now go ahead and beat each others' brains in some more.
Bill from NYC Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 When was the last time Bledsoe threw for 300 yards in a game? 194514[/snapback] I dont know CG, but he is approx. 750 total passing yards behind Joe Montana at the age of 32. Does this count?
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I dont know CG, but he is approx. 750 total passing yards behind Joe Montana at the age of 32. Does this count? 194564[/snapback] That 1994 season sure padded his stats.
LabattBlue Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 If you and these "logical and smart" fans owned a team the roster would include 14 QBs, all of whom would rotate for playing time because not a single one of the owners would understand the game of football well enough to grasp that the QB is no more important a player on the field than the other 10 guys who play with him on offense at any time. Maybe I can't use that- chances are your team would regularly try to field 12 and 13 guys to line up on offense! (and considering your obsession with the position probably two of them would be QBs!) 194446[/snapback] AKC...I question your statement above that I highlighted in bold. Are you trying to say that Peyton Manning is not more important to his team than his RG Tupe Peko?? Michael Vick not more important than WR Dez White? Dante Culpepper not more important than LT Bryant McKinnie? Drew Brees not more important than WR Eric Parker??
Beerball Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I dont know CG, but he is approx. 750 total passing yards behind Joe Montana at the age of 32. Does this count? 194564[/snapback] Are they close in won/loss percentage as well?
Alaska Darin Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 AKC...I question your statement above that I highlighted in bold. Are you trying to say that Peyton Manning is not more important to his team than his RG Tupe Peko?? Michael Vick not more important than WR Dez White? Dante Culpepper not more important than LT Bryant McKinnie? Drew Brees not more important than WR Eric Parker?? 194735[/snapback] ONE weak player within a group can regularly be exploited and quite often is the difference between the success/failure of a play. This was seen when CV left the field. I won't even get into Chris Watson or Eddie Robinson. Painful.
Alaska Darin Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Are they close in won/loss percentage as well? 194739[/snapback] Yeah, because individual players win/lose games. I remember Joe Montana being a great cover corner/situational pass rusher.
LabattBlue Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 ONE weak player within a group can regularly be exploited and quite often is the difference between the success/failure of a play. This was seen when CV left the field. I won't even get into Chris Watson or Eddie Robinson. Painful. 194741[/snapback] So in the event of an injury where a player cannot play in a game, losing Tupe Peko would have the same impact on the Colts as losing Peyton Manning?
Beerball Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Yeah, because individual players win/lose games. I remember Joe Montana being a great cover corner/situational pass rusher. 194744[/snapback] So it's a team game, and our team hasn't been to the playoffs since my youngest celebrated her 1st, so therefore our team sucks not our QB. Thanks, I feel much better now.
Alaska Darin Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 So in the event of an injury where a player cannot play in a game, losing Tupe Peko would have the same impact on the Colts as losing Peyton Manning? 194745[/snapback] Is Peko's replacement better than Mike Pucillo?
AKC Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 AKC...I question your statement above that I highlighted in bold. Are you trying to say that Peyton Manning is not more important to his team than his RG Tupe Peko?? Michael Vick not more important than WR Dez White? Dante Culpepper not more important than LT Bryant McKinnie? Drew Brees not more important than WR Eric Parker?? 194735[/snapback] Within the mix of a football team, or for this discussion the 11 players on offense, there is no one position that is more important than the other 10. There are surely quality differences between the players at the 11 spots on any team, but each team is different, for instance the Jets highest quality player this year all season has been Kevin Mawae, who has been the most impactive player and more responsible for their success than anyone they've had him snap the ball to. In Indy you can certainly make the argument that Manning happens to be the most impactive player, I wouldn't dispute it because I don't watch much of their regular season work- but that's an exclusive situation that exists within the talent on their team. It might also be the best example to exhibit why QB obsessed fans couldn't possibly manage a football team- remember that by the standard our whining ninnies have set, if you struggle in big games you're scrap heap material. Witness Mr. Manning, who has yet to win a single big game if we use the same standard set for Bledsoe. Manning has been made to look like Art Schlichter in big games, much like John Elway looked during the bulk of his career based on that standard. But back to the original question- entering any game or any season there are 11 guys on that offense, any one of which may have the most impact, either postive or negative in affecting a game's outcome. It's absolutely inpossible for instance to ignore the poor ball Moulds played this season on crucial downs without recognizing that he easily lost 2 games by not playing anywhere near his salary level. Does that mean we cut him? That's the standard the ninnnies have set for Bledsoe- if you want to be consistent you MUST apply the same standard to other "stars" on the team. On our offense, who was the most impactive player in this overall '04 campaign- I'd make a pretty good argument for Chris Villarial being our offensive MVP. We all saw what happened to our run game on Sunday when he was left the field. I've seen past Bill's offenses where the play at FB or RT was the single most critical to our winning- do they get recognition by ball-watching fans or the media? Hell no-casual fans and the media are looking for sizzle, not steak. They need someone that handles the ball to be more important because it makes for better pictures, and anyway linemen and TEs are ugly and dirty and in many cases difficult to understand. Like the media, casual fans want to pet the pretty QB or WR who dances better than them, or the RB who looks so much like the Heisman Trophy with that damn ball in his hands. But the game of football is won many times where the eyes of the fans and media are not paying attention. Let me use Pitt for example. They sat some "skill" players on Sunday against us. But make no mistake about it, their best players were on the field. Their starting offensive line has made, for at least the immediate time, a rookie QB a star and propelled them into the favored AFC team for the prize. Will a single one of them even get their own team's Offensive MVP? Hell no- but it doesn't mean they're not the reason Pitt is in the postion they're in. And did Dipstick Randy Cross even mention it? Was it a major point of discussion in the media? Hell no again. What I'm trying to provoke you into contemplating is not another season under Bledsoe- I'm asking you to be consistent with your argument about big games and high salaries and the measures you'd use to decide whether a high paid player should be given another chance next year- using the standard you apply to insist Bledsoe must be gone it's nearly impossible not to reach the same conclusion with Moulds. Eric has come up short in every big game op since he arrived. He'll be paid more than Bledsoe next year and yet he's never won us a big game, again by the standards Bledsoe is held to. And be very careful about why you might justify Moulds sticking our next roster- anything you say can and will be considered "apoligizing" for his play- based upon the standards being used to measure Bledsoe.
BF_in_Indiana Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 BF, I am NOT trying to convince you that Drew does not suck. That seems impossible. Please, do tell me this: Does it matter one iota to you that in 3 seasons, Drew: 1) Played 2 of 3 years for a rookie headcoach, one of whom sucked. 2) Played in the Gilbride system for 2 years. 3) Had NO blocking for 2 years, and some of this year before Mcnally did his job. 4) Lost Moulds for much of last season. 5) Had no decent #2 receiver last year. Do you consider the above when you deny that the 10th all time yardage qb is a good NFL qb, or are you just throwing things out there? 194259[/snapback] I think you make some very good points actually Bill, but his troubles started well before he got to Buffalo. I think he was like 17-19 or something in his last couple seasons with New England and he's 23-25 with the Bills. His career record is right around .500. He's been on some bad teams (2002 and '03 here) but he's also been on some very good ones too and always seemed to come up short when it counts. I don't really base my opinion on a quarterback with stats. If we did that Rob Johnson could be considered a good QB. We both know he's not. The little things are what are important. Tom Brady isn't as physically gifted as Drew is but Tom Brady does the little things so much better than Drew and those things lead to wins. The little things Drew does wrong lead to losses.
Bill from NYC Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Congrats AKC. That was as good as anything I have ever read on this board. I wish that there were more journalists who could even approach that great level of writing.
Bill from NYC Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Is Peko's replacement better than Mike Pucillo? 194753[/snapback] They dont care AD.
Bill from NYC Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I think you make some very good points actually Bill, but his troubles started well before he got to Buffalo. I think he was like 17-19 or something in his last couple seasons with New England and he's 23-25 with the Bills. His career record is right around .500. He's been on some bad teams (2002 and '03 here) but he's also been on some very good ones too and always seemed to come up short when it counts. I don't really base my opinion on a quarterback with stats. If we did that Rob Johnson could be considered a good QB. We both know he's not. The little things are what are important. Tom Brady isn't as physically gifted as Drew is but Tom Brady does the little things so much better than Drew and those things lead to wins. The little things Drew does wrong lead to losses. 194790[/snapback] BF, now toy are making sense but remember, I posted that to you because you stated that Bledsoe is "not a good NFL qb." Sorry, I just don't buy that statement in the literal sense.
Recommended Posts