Does longevity make someone a HOFer?

[Orton's Arm]

I will make a bold statement:

 

The first 8 games of the 2002 season, Drew Bledsoe had the best 8 game stretch of any Bills QB in my cogninsent Bills fan lifetime (1972-2005)...he may not be the HOF, second coming of Johnny Unitas, or even Jim Kelly, but he is not quite the piece of crap that many here seem to want to portray.

712932[/snapback]

I'll grant you this. Under some circumstances, Bledsoe played with greatness. Those eight games are a good example, as are his first eight games with Dallas. He also had some excellent play early in his career.

 

But his overall track record isn't one of great, or even very good play. It's one of mediocre play. No modern era quarterback with a rating as low as his belongs in a Hall of Fame discussion.

[Fezmid]

No modern era quarterback with a rating as low as his belongs in a Hall of Fame discussion.

What about someone with a QB rating of 79 (as opposed to Bledsoe's 77). Does a 79 deserve to be in the HoF?

[Orton's Arm]

What about someone with a QB rating of 79 (as opposed to Bledsoe's 77).  Does a 79 deserve to be in the HoF?

713104[/snapback]

I have the feeling you've got a specific quarterback in mind with a rating of 79. But I'm too lazy to look up whichever one it might be. If it's an older era quarterback, the 79 rating wouldn't be a disqualifier, because the rules were a lot less passing-friendly back then. If it's a modern era guy, one who's still playing, then no, a guy with a rating of 79 probably shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

[Fezmid]

I have the feeling you've got a specific quarterback in mind with a rating of 79.  But I'm too lazy to look up whichever one it might be.  If it's an older era quarterback, the 79 rating wouldn't be a disqualifier, because the rules were a lot less passing-friendly back then.  If it's a modern era guy, one who's still playing, then no, a guy with a rating of 79 probably shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

713113[/snapback]

John Elway has a 79 rating. Hard to argue against him being in the Hall, but his QB rating sucks. Further reason that the QB rating is (IMHO) worthless.

CW

[Buftex]

No offense, buftex, but there's nothing bold about that. 

 

I've always agreed that Bledsoe is not nearly as bad as people made him out to be. He got lambasted here because of his weaknesses, which I thought was unfair as he played behind a bad OL. I remember some Patsies fans telling me shortly after the trade that Bledsoe - while a good QB - would never lead anyone to the Superbowl again. I didn't understand why for the first half of 2002. I can now understand why they said that, but he was missing a few pieces in Buffalo.

713002[/snapback]

 

 

I know there are some reasonable people here...you would just think, from some folks here, that Bledsoe was the worst QB in club history.

 

TD never built an offense that took advantage of Bledsoe's strengths, only one that exposed his weaknesses...

[Orton's Arm]

John Elway has a 79 rating.  Hard to argue against him being in the Hall, but his QB rating sucks.  Further reason that the QB rating is (IMHO) worthless.

CW

Ha! I guessed right about you having a specific quarterback in mind.

 

I agree Elway belongs in the Hall of Fame. But the passing rules were a lot less friendly back then, so a rating of 79 back then might be the same as a rating of 85 or so today.

 

Moreover, Elway typically wasn't surrounded with good talent, so that puts downward pressure on his rating. I also remember Elway being known more for the long bomb than the Walsh Coast short, high percentage passes. Obviously that high risk, high reward style of offense hurts his completion percentage, and therefore his passer rating.

 

Maybe getting rid of completion percentage entirely--or at least minimizing its importance--would be a positive change to the passer rating system. Look at yards per pass attempt, TD passes, and INTs.

 

Obviously, though, there's no comparison between Elway and Drew. Elway would be the only guy keeping otherwise untalented teams alive. On his arm alone his teams would get 7 to 9 wins a year, even when everything else seemed to be falling apart. For most of his career, Drew was never remotely as critical to his teams' success.

[RuntheDamnBall]

John Elway has a 79 rating.  Hard to argue against him being in the Hall, but his QB rating sucks.  Further reason that the QB rating is (IMHO) worthless.

CW

713120[/snapback]

You're right.

Records also matter.

Elway in playoffs as starter: 14-8, Super Bowl wins: 2.

Bledsoe in playoffs as starter: 4-3. Super Bowl wins: 0.

 

I will give Bledsoe the props for his mop-up duty and role as supportive backup in the Pats' first SB year, but that doesn't make him a champion QB, or a Hall of Fame QB. OtOH, Elway showed that a team could win it all, twice, with him at the helm. If Bledsoe wins one, things change, but with things as they are, I don't think his stats, record, or longevity are enough.

[Fezmid]

I agree Elway belongs in the Hall of Fame.  But the passing rules were a lot less friendly back then, so a rating of 79 back then might be the same as a rating of 85 or so today.

Huh? Nearly half of Bledsoe's career covered the same years as Elway (including some of his biggest years). So using that logic, Bledsoe's rating should be considered and 82 or 83.

 

Moreover, Elway typically wasn't surrounded with good talent, so that puts downward pressure on his rating.  I also remember Elway being known more for the long bomb than the Walsh Coast short, high percentage passes.  Obviously that high risk, high reward style of offense hurts his completion percentage, and therefore his passer rating.

You do realize that this entire paragraph describes Bledsoe as well, right?

 

CW

[Fezmid]

You're right.

Records also matter.

Elway in playoffs as starter: 14-8, Super Bowl wins: 2.

Bledsoe in playoffs as starter: 4-3.  Super Bowl wins: 0.

 

I will give Bledsoe the props for his mop-up duty and role as supportive backup in the Pats' first SB year, but that doesn't make him a champion QB, or a Hall of Fame QB.  OtOH, Elway showed that a team could win it all, twice, with him at the helm.  If Bledsoe wins one, things change, but with things as they are, I don't think his stats, record, or longevity are enough.

713134[/snapback]

One could counter that Davis won those Superbowls, not Elway. How many Superbowls did Elway lose without TD in the backfield?

 

Just playing 's advocate.

 

CW

[RuntheDamnBall]

One could counter that Davis won those Superbowls, not Elway.  How many Superbowls did Elway lose without TD in the backfield?

 

Just playing  's advocate.

 

CW

713142[/snapback]

Not as many as Kelly lost with Thurman in the backfield?

 

Fact is, Drew made it to, and lost, one. Elway made it to five, and won two. Not even close.

[Orton's Arm]

Huh?  Nearly half of Bledsoe's career covered the same years as Elway (including some of his biggest years).  So using that logic, Bledsoe's rating should be considered and 82 or 83. 

Yes, there's overlap. I'm willing to grant that some of Bledsoe's early years are better than they seem due to subsequent rules changes that made it easier to pass. Take the five yard bump rule, which they started enforcing a while back. Before that, it was a lot harder to complete passes. All or almost all of Elway's passing stats were complied before that change went into effect, while most of Bledsoe's career has taken place after that rules change. Comparing the passer ratings of quarterbacks playing by different rules is apples to oranges.

 

Bledsoe had some good years early in his career. But other than his half season flashes in the pan for Buffalo and Dallas, he hasn't been able to achieve a QB rating of 80 since 1998. Rob Johnson's career average is above 80, and that's with a similar, deep ball-oriented style of play.

 

You seem to see a parallel between Elway and Bledsoe. But you could make a very strong case that the Bills would have won more games in 2004 with Holcomb under center, than they did with Bledsoe. In contrast, there are no grounds whatsoever upon which to believe the Broncos could possibly have won as many games with a Holcomb-like quarterback, than they would have won with Elway.

[MrLocke]

Huh?  Nearly half of Bledsoe's career covered the same years as Elway (including some of his biggest years).  So using that logic, Bledsoe's rating should be considered and 82 or 83. 

You do realize that this entire paragraph describes Bledsoe as well, right?

 

CW

713140[/snapback]

 

Bledsoe not surrounded by good talent? Curtis Martin, Terry Glenn, Sean Jefferson, Ben Coates and Bruce Armstrong. Bledsoe had a glut of good receivers in New England. Not to mention the O-line picked it up it's play as soon as Brady was the starter. Brady is one of the slowest QBs in the NFL.

[Rico]

Sorry, but gutless quitters (see 2003) do not belong in the HOF, and are not warriors.

 

The only differences between Drew Bledsoe and Billy Joe Hobert are:

1. A whole lot more $$$$$$$$$...BJ didn't care about the money.

2. A whole lot more starts & snaps to make that $$$$$$$$$,

cause that's all he's playing for.

3. A whole lot more yards & TDs picked up in garbage time against prevent defenses

while trying to get back into games that he already lost for his teams.

[Fezmid]

Sorry, but gutless quitters (see 2003) do not belong in the HOF, and are not warriors.

 

The only differences between Drew Bledsoe and Billy Joe Hobert are:

1. A whole lot more $$$$$$$$$...BJ didn't care about the money.

2. A whole lot more starts & snaps to make that $$$$$$$$$,

cause that's all he's playing for.

3. A whole lot more yards & TDs picked up in garbage time against prevent defenses

while trying to get back into games that he already lost for his teams.

713258[/snapback]

Can you back up ANY of this tripe? No

[Rico]

Can you back up ANY of this tripe?  No   

713281[/snapback]

Tripe? TRIPE?!?!? How dare you?

 

The truth must hurt,

you know I'm right.

[Orton's Arm]

The only differences between Drew Bledsoe and Billy Joe Hobert are:

I'm not exactly awed by Bledsoe's level of play, but not even I would go nearly so far as this.

 

The reason Bledsoe doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame is there just isn't enough of a legacy. Barring the first half of 2002, his play for the Bills has been mediocre. Bledsoe has added very little to his legacy after leaving New England. So let's look at that New England legacy.

 

Kelly Holcomb has averaged 6.67 yards per attempt over the course of his career. If you're going to look like a Hall of Famer, you should be able to do better than Holcomb, right? 7 yards per attempt seems like a pretty good indicator of where a quarterback should be if he's one of the best. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both have career averages of over 7 yards per attempt.

 

In New England, Bledsoe only broke 7 yards per attempt three times--in 1997 through 1999. His career yards per attempt is a pedestrian 6.64--slightly lower than Kelly Holcomb's, and significantly lower than Manning's or Brady's. Bledsoe also deserves credit for the 1994 season because of all those yards he threw for.

 

So we're talking about a potential Hall of Fame induction for a guy who's had four good years for the Patriots, and half a good year each for the Bills and the Cowboys. That's five years of play in which he looked like a guy who belongs in a Hall of Fame discussion, compared to eight years of looking like a very ordinary quarterback.

[Fla Bills Fan]

Actually, if I recall correctly, RJ had at least one, if not two winning starts for the Bucs the year they won the Super Bowl.  He was not great in any of his starts, and was sacked often, but was a "caretaker" QB, the way the Bills braintrust envisioned JP Losman going into the 2005 season.

712931[/snapback]

You remember wrong, having watched Tampa since 1984 when I moved down here, (there were no sports bars or sat TV) I saw every game that year. Rob played a couple games and lost them both.

[Fezmid]

You remember wrong, having watched Tampa since 1984 when I moved down here, (there were no sports bars or sat TV) I saw every game that year. Rob played a couple games and lost them both.

713320[/snapback]

You, my friend, must've been drunk during all of Tampa's games and blacked it all out:

2002: Played in 6 games with 2 starts for the Super Bowl champion Buccaneers…Tampa Bay won games in which he started…

 

http://www.giants.com/team/player.asp?player_id=243

 

In addition, Johnson won Tampa's first ever game against a team when the temperature was below 40 degrees.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20021229_TB@CHI

 

Winning that game secured a first round bye and home field for the team. While the defense played lights out, Johnson did lead them to 5 scores (3 good drives) and no picks.

 

If he didn't get hurt every other play, I think he would've turned out to be a decent QB.

CW

[Fezmid]

Tripe? TRIPE?!?!? How dare you?

 

The truth must hurt,

you know I'm right.  

713294[/snapback]

You want to just send me the $50 check now and save yourself the agony? Heck, I won't even post in any more DB threads if you do

 

CW

[MDH]

If he didn't get hurt every other play, I think he would've turned out to be a decent QB. 

CW

713392[/snapback]

 

I don't think that is what prevented him from being a decent QB. He actually wasn't a fragile guy, he just took WAY too many shots. I don't know how many times I saw him get creamed and think, "well, he's knocked out of the game" only to see him scrape himself up off the turf and go back to the huddle. He did get hurt an inordinate amount of times but it had to do with how many shots he was taking, not that he couldn't take a shot.

 

His main problem was a lack of awareness. If he had any type of pocket presense the guy would have been a good QB...but alas, he didn't. That being said he's one of the toughest QBs I've ever seen as I don't think I've ever seen a QB take as many shots as he did and keep picking himself up. The guy had the physical tools and the heart to be great, he just didn't have the head for the game that was needed.