Mile High Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 This post has got to be killing Foxboro Mike . I'm figuring he's on step 7 or 8 by now and he's just foaming at the mouth. . Temptation is there just got..... to....... control.... myself...
JohninMinn. Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 I thought the Bledsoe Bashing was over... I think we just want the Bills to win and Bledsoe can do that. So get over your anybody but Bledsoe crap.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted September 19, 2004 Author Posted September 19, 2004 Nicely worded post but basically bunk. we wouldn't need to focus on DB if we had the '85 bears D or the '01?? Ravens D..but since our D is just above average--we need a good -quick thinking,clutch QB...and who would that be??????--all I can say is "NOT DB." 36432[/snapback] The line of thinking was exactly why I was interested in us not taking on any additional cap liability for honoring the contract we inherited from NE to get Bledsoe. Having the lowest possible cap hit for you QB as the Ravens did by paying Dilfer the minimum is part of why they could afford to pay Ray Lewis and others throught the nose and afford a world-class D. It appears to me as though TD actually read the QB market correctly (as any GM worth his salt should be able to do better than an outside amateur such as myself) as teams like the Fins and Cleveland proved all too willing to pay more for Jeff Garcia and AJ Feeley (two QBs I had targeted early as replacements for DB) ended up costing more than I would have paid them and constrained our cap for buiulding a solid D. As the market seem to mandate that the Bills in fact resign DB if he would agree to a cap-friendly deal, TD did manage to do this with Bledsoe. While I think it is not likely but certainly possible to win with Bledsoe at QB, TD has really taken a different track with the position than I would have. I have thought that signing a credible number 2 for a virtual contract song was an important thing to do. Even though Bledsoe has shown that he is a very coachable player both early (when Parcells coached a team with DB at the helm to an SB) and late in his career (when BB/Weis were able to effectively have Bledsoe run an offense re-designed for Brady to a win in a must win game) as with top notch coaches he did what had to be done to get to the SB. I wouldn't have banked on him recovering from his 2003 debacle season and NFL QBs get injured too easily in this league anyway. TD put his faith in Brown and I wouldn't have done that. Likewise, I think his choice for disaster QB, Losman is a choice for the future even before his injury. Still my doubts about the Bledsoe choice was less of a reflection on him as a player and actually real doubt as to whether a rookie HC and OC could pull off the coaching job that a Parcells and Belicheck built themselves up to the level they had when they pulled the right strings with the very coachable Bledsoe (he is a team guy from all we have seen and this is an area where being dumb is quite helpful). However, despite the critical problem of a lack of point production, the underlying logistice look pretty good so far: 1. Bledsoe has proved to be even more coachable than I expected excuting the quick release offense effectively (at least between the 20s) Sunday. 2. Good balance between run and pass play called was shown in the game though the failure to even test the Jags downfield is a concern. 3. The third down conversion number was at 50% which I woukd attribute to some creative play calling by Clements such as the draw play on thrid and long. 4. The OL looked surprisingly good in pass pro to me with only one sack being racked up, though a more productive run game is essential for this O to work, it is to be hoped the main cause was actually a better than average Jag eun D. So all-in-all I could do without Bledsoe, but given that TD signed him to a cap friendly contract and the O shows promise though it still falls short of rreaching the ultimate goal which is to score points.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Huhhh???..well--yes I COMPLETELY agree with you..and I am sure belicek does too...so lets just go and ask him reeeaaall nicely....and I am sure belicek would be happy to swap Brady for Bledsoe...after alll---its the D whichwon NE 2 superbowls. 36434[/snapback] You're finally getting it. Bad D in 2002=no playoffs. Great D in 2001 and 2003=2 SB wins each by 3 points. See the connection?
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted September 19, 2004 Author Posted September 19, 2004 You're finally getting it. Bad D in 2002=no playoffs. Great D in 2001 and 2003=2 SB wins each by 3 points. See the connection? 36568[/snapback] I agree that the quality of the D played a big role in NE going from SB to missing the playoffs to SB. However, it has been my sense (and correct me if I'm wrong because I follow the Pats to the extent that it directly impacts match-ups against the Bills and do not track the fortunes of the team as a whole) that ironically it was the effect of how the Pats lost Bledsoe which overlay their fortune in the 2002 and 2003 seasons. Specifically, by trading Bledsoe after winning the SB in the 2001 seasaon, the team took an accelerated cap hit for the 2002 season. This cap hit greatly constrained the Pats ability to bid for the marginal pros who can't start but are the back-ups you need when players get hurt or step-up to challenge starters and make them better. The Pats profitted greatly from acquiring a bunch of players after the July cuts in 2001 but could not pull this off with a smaller cap in the 2002 season, in the end they ran out of gas and missed the playoffs. In the 2003 season, they had worked through the minor cap hell of absorbing the acceleration of the cap hit and it proved to be just in time as they were able to acquire a great bunch of back-ups and some solid FA players (Harrison for example) with their restored cap room. Offensive players and defensive players are linked like never before through the cap.
Tom Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 I agree that the quality of the D played a big role in NE going from SB to missing the playoffs to SB. However, it has been my sense (and correct me if I'm wrong because I follow the Pats to the extent that it directly impacts match-ups against the Bills and do not track the fortunes of the team as a whole) that ironically it was the effect of how the Pats lost Bledsoe which overlay their fortune in the 2002 and 2003 seasons. Specifically, by trading Bledsoe after winning the SB in the 2001 seasaon, the team took an accelerated cap hit for the 2002 season. This cap hit greatly constrained the Pats ability to bid for the marginal pros who can't start but are the back-ups you need when players get hurt or step-up to challenge starters and make them better. The Pats profitted greatly from acquiring a bunch of players after the July cuts in 2001 but could not pull this off with a smaller cap in the 2002 season, in the end they ran out of gas and missed the playoffs. In the 2003 season, they had worked through the minor cap hell of absorbing the acceleration of the cap hit and it proved to be just in time as they were able to acquire a great bunch of back-ups and some solid FA players (Harrison for example) with their restored cap room. Offensive players and defensive players are linked like never before through the cap. So it was all Bledsoe's fault the Pats missed the playoffs in '02? I guess Drew should just walk away at 32.......
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 So it was all Bledsoe's fault the Pats missed the playoffs in '02? I guess Drew should just walk away at 32....... 36592[/snapback] FFS' contention that Bledsoe' accelerated cap hit in 2002 caused the Pats to lose depth and thus play poorly would seem to make sense, but the Pats fielded the EXACT SAME TEAM in 2002 as 2001, with the differences being they replaced DT Brandon Mitchell with Steve Martin (same money), upgraded at TE (Fauria over Wiggins) and added speedy WR Deion Branch. Their key players all remained the same, as did their depth.
Guest Guest Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Talk about bunk. When you can limit your opponent to 6 points for 58 minutes of a game and your offense can only score 10 points because they keep shooting themselves in the foot (excluding the QB), 7 of which are set-up by the defense with other turnovers generated to help out the offense, you don't have a "just above average" defense. Go back to class. 36433[/snapback] OK--they are better than just above average---which only further proves my point that DB can't get it done.Thanx.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 OK--they are better than just above average---which only further proves my point that DB can't get it done.Thanx. 36697[/snapback] Give it up. Now.
Recommended Posts