Bledsoe's 2005 season w/ Cowboys

[Kelly the Dog]

Well yeah, I figured I'd cue somebody to frisk the net.

But no, the idea that I'd never heard it discussed outside of here is not 'untrue' at all. 

699775[/snapback]

Here's another one where Dr. Z, a favorite around here, discusses it. He thinks if Drew has one or two more good years he could make it (and this was written 1-2 years ago) because the selectors like good comeback stories.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...lumn/index.html

[Dibs]

Boy, I hope you are not to upset when this not great QB likely makes it to the HOF.

699758[/snapback]

Not at all.

When I said Bledsoe is "not a great QB" I was being literal....as in....not one of the greats like Marino/Elway etc.

I think he will probably eventually get into the HOF(based on the numbers) but I can't see that there can ever be much argument on weather he is one of the great QBs of NFL history.

 

My point re: Losman/Bledsoe was more about the fact that Bledsoe cannot elevate a team & win (playoff) games off his ability alone(i.e. he isn't one of the 'greats') while Losman was/is an unknown potential & therefore has the possibility of being able to develop into that 'great' QB.

 

Though a team does not need to have a 'great' QB to win the SB, it certainly gives you much more chance if you do have one.

[Pyrite Gal]

Not at all. 

When I said Bledsoe is "not a great QB" I was being literal....as in....not one of the greats like Marino/Elway etc.

I think he will probably eventually get into the HOF(based on the numbers) but I can't see that there can ever be much argument on weather he is one of the great QBs of NFL history.

 

My point re: Losman/Bledsoe was more about the fact that Bledsoe cannot elevate a team & win (playoff) games off his ability alone(i.e. he isn't one of the 'greats') while Losman was/is an unknown potential & therefore has the possibility of being able to develop into that 'great' QB.

 

Though a team does not need to have a 'great' QB to win the SB, it certainly gives you much more chance if you do have one.

699778[/snapback]

 

Nut he led a team to an SC under Parcells early in his career and played QB and threw the winning TD ib a must win game late in his career. He had a few outstandig seasons over the course of his career and merited being NFL comeback player of the year in 2002 when he deserved Pro Bowl reserve recognition that year.

 

Is he the best QB ever?

 

Nope.

 

Has he had a great career which featured being around and accumiulatimg massive numbers, a few outstanding seasons and the resiliency to achieve good performances after he was surpassed in NE (correctly) and in Buffalo (foolishly since though he was inadequate his replacement was worse).

 

Yep.

 

i simply do no see why folks have such a big problem here.

 

Where expectations of him unreasonable?

 

Yep.

 

However, that says more to me about the unreasonableness of those who set the expectations than of his play.

[Dibs]

Nut he led a team to an SC under Parcells early in his career and played QB and threw the winning TD ib a must win game late in his career. He had a few outstandig seasons over the course of his career and merited being NFL comeback player of the year in 2002 when he deserved Pro Bowl reserve recognition that year.

 

Is he the best QB ever?

 

Nope.

 

Has he had a great career which featured being around and accumiulatimg massive numbers, a few outstanding seasons and the resiliency to achieve good performances after he was surpassed in NE (correctly) and in Buffalo (foolishly since though he was inadequate his replacement was worse).

 

Yep.

 

i simply do no see why folks have such a big problem here.

 

Where expectations of him unreasonable?

 

Yep.

 

However, that says more to me about the unreasonableness of those who set the expectations than of his play.

699783[/snapback]

Um...I don't understand why you reference my post with your post.

I get that you would have kept Bledsoe rather than try JP but...

I havn't really 'knocked' Bledsoe at all(unless not putting him on the same level as Marino/Elway is putting him down).

All I've done is put forward some thoughts on why I agreed with the concept of letting him go.

I'm not one of the "folks who has such a big problem here".

[Bill from NYC]

I noticed you only cited Drew's yardage. How do his other numbers stack up with the greats?

699707[/snapback]

 

Passing TDs

 

If he stays healthy, he will almost certainly be in the top 10 this season.

[Rico]

Passing TDs

 

If he stays healthy, he will almost certainly be in the top 10 this season.

699805[/snapback]

Wow, only 3 away from Boomer... maybe they'll have a parade for him when he passes David Krieg and Vinny.

[smokinandjokin]

Where expectations of him unreasonable?

 

Yep.

699783[/snapback]

 

It was unreasonable for us to expect him to be better than average against Pittsburgh's 3rd string? It was unreasonable for us to expect a 10-year veteran to be able to lift the team to victory with the playoffs on the line? It was unreasonable to expect that a QB who only won three games against playoff teams in his three-year career (Pats in 2003, Rams and Seahawks in 2004) would have to compete for a starting job? He was 23-25 in his three years in Buffalo, and is 95-96 in his reg season career, and 3-4 in the playoffs. Oh yeah, and in 2001, a 6th round QB took a team that Bledsoe went 5-11 with the year before, and 0-2 in his first two games of '01, to the Super Bowl title. He's a .500 QB. He'll beat the Browns at home, but send him on the road against a decent team, and you just wait for the meltdown to happen.

[Fezmid]

My point re: Losman/Bledsoe was more about the fact that Bledsoe cannot elevate a team & win (playoff) games off his ability alone(i.e. he isn't one of the 'greats') while Losman was/is an unknown potential & therefore has the possibility of being able to develop into that 'great' QB.

 

With Bledsoe -- 9-7

Without Bledsoe -- 5-11

 

Who's to say that Bledsoe wasn't the one elevating the team to nearly twice as many wins as we had last year? Maybe given our roster, he WAS elevating the team.

 

Scary thought, no?

 

CW

[RuntheDamnBall]

It was unreasonable for us to expect him to be better than average against Pittsburgh's 3rd string?  It was unreasonable for us to expect a 10-year veteran to be able to lift  the team to victory with the playoffs on the line?  It was unreasonable to expect that a QB who only won three games against playoff teams in his three-year career (Pats in 2003, Rams and Seahawks in 2004) would have to compete for a starting job?  He was 23-25 in his three years in Buffalo, and is 95-96 in his reg season career, and 3-4 in the playoffs.  Oh yeah, and in 2001, a 6th round QB took a team that Bledsoe went 5-11 with the year before, and 0-2 in his first two games of '01, to the Super Bowl title.  He's a .500 QB.  He'll beat the Browns at home, but send him on the road against a decent team, and you just wait for the meltdown to happen.

699830[/snapback]

Right now, Bledsoe's stats compare him a bit favorably to Dave Krieg. And Krieg had better postseason stats. Granted, this is over a few more years and Bledsoe has him by a good margin in yardage. Still, would you even think of putting Krieg into the HoF? I wouldn't. Both were/are good, not great, NFL QBs who would need a lot of help winning a Super Bowl -- help, like a pretty damned amazing offensive line we never had.

[Fezmid]

was unreasonable to expect that a QB who only won three games against playoff teams in his three-year career (Pats in 2003, Rams and Seahawks in 2004) would have to compete for a starting job?

Slight correction -- he was told he'd be a backup and not have a shot at the starting position, and that's what he was pissed about. He even said that he would be fine competing for the starting position.

 

Would you want a player on your team that was happy to be second string?

[RuntheDamnBall]

With Bledsoe -- 9-7

Without Bledsoe -- 5-11

 

Who's to say that Bledsoe wasn't the one elevating the team to nearly twice as many wins as we had last year?  Maybe given our roster, he WAS elevating the team.

 

Scary thought, no?

 

CW

699843[/snapback]

As long as we're playing that game, how about

 

With Pat Williams: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

 

With Travis Henry: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

 

With Rod Trafford: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

[RuntheDamnBall]

Slight correction -- he was told he'd be a backup and not have a shot at the starting position, and that's what he was pissed about.  He even said that he would be fine competing for the starting position.

 

Would you want a player on your team that was happy to be second string?

699848[/snapback]

Most people here concede the team effed up in that regard. They should have let the QBs compete. It would have let the people who had illusions that Bledsoe was going to take the team any further down a lot easier. And it certainly would have been better on the team. Don't let the fact that TD and MM sucked in terms of decision-making cloud the fact that Bledsoe had a really good chance to help us make the playoffs and didn't seal the deal.

[BuffOrange]

As long as we're playing that game, how about

 

With Pat Williams: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

 

With Travis Henry: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

 

With Rod Trafford: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

699850[/snapback]

 

rofl, you forgot Izelle Reese. Then there's 2003. Being completely healthy in the prime of your career and failing to generate a single offensive TD in 7 out of 16 games is the kind of stuff Canton QB's are made of.

[Fezmid]

As long as we're playing that game, how about

 

With Pat Williams: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

 

With Travis Henry: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

 

With Rod Trafford: 9-7

w/o: 5-11

699850[/snapback]

Fine, then maybe Eric Moulds was the real problem -- how many playoff games have we been in with him as a starter?

[stuckincincy]

IMO Bledsoe is light in the leadership department. That he didn't fling his helmet into the stands and storm off the field as the Gilbride offensive philosophy was shown to be asinine still irks me.

 

I'll take the likes of a Jim Harbaugh, Steve Grogan, Ron Jaworski, Jim McMahon, Billy Kilmer, etc. - fighting men with a team at their disposal - over the talented Drew Bledsoes...

[RuntheDamnBall]

Fine, then maybe Eric Moulds was the real problem -- how many playoff games have we been in with him as a starter? 

699872[/snapback]

Way to miss the point. This team lost more than just Bledsoe last year - especially to injury - and they lost games as a team. How about not having Spikes for 14 games? No, I'm sure that made no difference. Bledsoe's greatness = 4 more wins, of course!

 

With a better cast of personnel, Bledsoe wasn't able to finish in a win-and-you're-in-game against a team of 3rd stringers with nothing to play for. I'm sure it gets old for you to hear that, but it's never going to be less true. That team lost - again - as a team, but the supposed veteran leadership that you're indicating Bledsoe provided was in short supply when the task was pretty damned clear.

[Bill from NYC]

I think it's funny that people still argue that Bledsoe is good given the mountain of evidence that says otherwise. 

699757[/snapback]

 

You see, this is what I simply cannot understand.

Good for Buffalo? No, we cannot block, and he needs more protection than most.

A good scrambler? Absolutely not.

 

Still, evidence that says that he is "not good?" Really, this is simply not true. The following is why Drew Bledsoe is "good":

 

1) He is almost certain to retire in the top 10 in terms of passing TDs and passing yards.

2) He is durable.

3) He was blessed with an arm that enables him to make throws that only a few were ever capable of making. Will you at least concede this?

4) His teammates seem to like and respect him.

5) Parcells thinks enough of him to use him as his qb to make perhaps one last run. This alone should point to him being a good qb.

 

PG is completely right. Expectations were unreasonable in Buffalo. Drew has some serious limitations, along with the ability to throw some literally great passes. That said, he was unable to walk in and push us over the top, especially given the curious at best coaching and personnel moves.

 

And to those who blame Drew alone for the Pittsburgh loss, I remind you that Drew was not playing defense.

[Fezmid]

Way to miss the point.  This team lost more than just Bledsoe last year - especially to injury - and they lost games as a team.  How about not having Spikes for 14 games?  No, I'm sure that made no difference.    Bledsoe's greatness = 4 more wins, of course!

 

With a better cast of personnel, Bledsoe wasn't able to finish in a win-and-you're-in-game against a team of 3rd stringers with nothing to play for.  I'm sure it gets old for you to hear that, but it's never going to be less true.  That team lost - again - as a team, but the supposed veteran leadership that you're indicating Bledsoe provided was in short supply when the task was pretty damned clear.

699885[/snapback]

Pat Williams couldn't beat the Steelers either... The defense couldn't stop a 3rd string offense either, so why are you putting it all on Bledsoe for that game?

 

I also seem to recall a game-winning TD being taken back due to a bone headed play by (I think) Josh Reed, forcing us to settle for a FG instead.

 

All I'm saying is that it's easy to point the finger at one player, and the QB is usually that person who gets pointed at. However, this team had (and has) MUCH bigger holes than the QB.

CW

[Pyrite Gal]

It was unreasonable for us to expect him to be better than average against Pittsburgh's 3rd string?  It was unreasonable for us to expect a 10-year veteran to be able to lift  the team to victory with the playoffs on the line?  It was unreasonable to expect that a QB who only won three games against playoff teams in his three-year career (Pats in 2003, Rams and Seahawks in 2004) would have to compete for a starting job?  He was 23-25 in his three years in Buffalo, and is 95-96 in his reg season career, and 3-4 in the playoffs.  Oh yeah, and in 2001, a 6th round QB took a team that Bledsoe went 5-11 with the year before, and 0-2 in his first two games of '01, to the Super Bowl title.  He's a .500 QB.  He'll beat the Browns at home, but send him on the road against a decent team, and you just wait for the meltdown to happen.

699830[/snapback]

 

Yep. I think it was unreasonable to expect Bledsoe to have that kind of production for us and that is part of why I would have cut him before 2004 because I did not think he coul deliver for us.

 

However, this is a different question than whether I think he had a great career. I think he did before we got him and is in the process of adding to his accumulated numbers such that I think he will likely get into the HoF.

 

However, by the time we got him there were things Bledsoe couldn't do (like carry a team to the SB or have a good shot at the playoffs with him as your QB starter, and I think it is not smart football and is pretty unreasonable to think otherwise.

 

Again, this does not mean he cannot do anything or that he has no value as a player. He had just played QB in the majority of a just win game for NE the year before in their SB run and totally earned and deserved his SB ring because of that.

 

However, anyone who thinks that he also is good enough anymore to lead a team to the SB as he did early in his career under Parcells is simply fooling themselves.

 

He was a very good acquisition by TD in 2002 after our 3-13 season where we had to pay the Grim Reeper for Butler robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep this team competing for glory in the mid 90s and beyond when we more gracefully should have cut some vets and reloaded with a couple of years of slight losses rather than really hit the wall with cap hell in 2001.

 

Bledsoe was easily the right guy to cut so that the Pats kept brady in 2002. however, this does not mean even though Bledsoe could no longer carry a team to the SB or even the playoffs unless you got very very lucky that he was a bad acquisition by TD.

 

1. We had no choice but to upgrade at QB over the horrible injury prone RJ.

2. Our only two viable choices in FA we seemed to have with our quicker than expected (but yet not complete at that time) folks like chris Chandler or Jeff Blake. Bledsoe, despite his clear limitations as not being more than a role player in a successful SB run was clearly a much better QB than the injury prone Chandler and the was not a has-been because he never really was Blake. At least Bledsoe was a has-been.

3. The big deal for us was that he was cost-effective. There was simply no other way we could get a recent pro starting QB (not to mention a just past SB winner) for a song because NE was going to absorb his accelerated cap hit.

4. Ironically, even though Belicheck totally had Bledsoe's number because he knew him so well and this guaranteed us two losses to NE in 2002, this did not matter for us because we simply needed to show substantial improvement over 3-13. Even with two guaranteed losses, Bledsoe led the way in doing this as we finished 8-8. Ironically, even though keeping Brady over bledsoe was the right thing to do in the big picture for NE, this move absolutely killed them in 2002 as the accelerated cap hit from trading Bledsoe made things so tight for them with the salary cap they even missed the playoffs that year even though this foul season is bookended by SB wins.

 

Bledsoe was done, nada, over and it was unreasonable for anyone who claims any football knowledge to think he was gonna carry a team to an SB or without a lot of luck and great play by his teammates even get a team a playoff berth.

 

However, bledsoe was a very good cheap acquisition by us coming off a 3-13 season.

 

He demonstrated how past his good old days he is and why the Bills should have called it a wash after his horrendous 2003. The big mistake TD made was letting the QB psychosis and our desire to find the next Jim Kelly lead to him extending rather than cutting Bledsoe. He then added insult to this injuy by giving the starting QB job to JP when he had done nothing to earn it on the field and even Bledsoe who we foolishly extended would have been a better choice than JP.

 

Am I saying that Bledsoe would have been an adequate QB in 05 if we kept him?

 

No (I would have cut him after 03).

 

Am I saying that even an inadequae Bledsoe would have done better than JP last year?

 

Yes.

 

Do you disagree?

[RuntheDamnBall]

Pat Williams couldn't beat the Steelers either...   The defense couldn't stop a 3rd string offense either, so why are you putting it all on Bledsoe for that game?

 

I also seem to recall a game-winning TD being taken back due to a bone headed play by (I think) Josh Reed, forcing us to settle for a FG instead.

 

All I'm saying is that it's easy to point the finger at one player, and the QB is usually that person who gets pointed at.  However, this team had (and has) MUCH bigger holes than the QB.

CW

699892[/snapback]

You're absolutely right, the defense was sh-- that day against Maddox and Brian St. Pierre (though Parker proved to be better than we had thought, making for some vindication, I guess). But all the same, the defense scored seven of our points that day on a Clements INT return.

 

That means Bledsoe's offense engineered 17 points, seven of which he negated by fumbling it for a Pittsburgh touchdown in the fourth quarter, this after just being sacked. Seven (!) 3-and-outs. Sorry, I expect better from a HoF QB in crunch-time.

 

Edit: looking at the play-by-play I realize I had forgotten how UGLY this game was. So many turnovers at a time of year when the team should have been bringing its A-game. Pittsburgh had the third-stringer excuse. Mularkey did not. I am not sorry to see his superb brand of "clutch" coaching go. He should have had this team ready.

Edited May 30, 2006 by RuntheDamnBall