BenchBledsoe Posted November 15, 2004 Author Posted November 15, 2004 The D coulodn't stop the run. Drew blew chunks, as did his offensive mates. Dillon ate up 74 yards against our D in the first quarter, and we barely managed to slow him down after that (and allowed Faulk to gain over 60 yards). If DB played the way he did but the D shut down the run, I'd say about 80% with a healthy 19.9% at WM and the running game (to include the OL). Since the D was worthless against the run AND the pass, they singlehandedly took us out of our gameplan, therefore, they get the lionshare of the blame. I'd say about 40% D, 30% WM/running game, and 30% DB/WRs. 117462[/snapback] Only 30% of the blame to DB? I think you'll find you are in the extreme minority of people who would say that. Maybe even the ONLY person who would say that. Does ANYONE else on this board agree that DB should only get 30% of the blame in tonight's game? ANYONE at all?
Campy Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 Only 30% of the blame to DB? I think you'll find you are in the extreme minority of people who would say that. 117477[/snapback] Considering I've forgotten more Xs and Os than the majority on this board will ever know, I'll take that as a compliment. Here's the deal, it makes no sense to blame ONE GUY when every single one of them played like stevestojan. Given the way the Pats blew this alledgedly great defense off the ball when they ran, and then turned right around and gave Brady a decade to find open receivers, the D deserves the majority of the blame. Our D singlehandedly took us out of our gameplan. Whether you believe it or not simply doesn't matter.
BenchBledsoe Posted November 15, 2004 Author Posted November 15, 2004 Considering I've forgotten more Xs and Os than the majority on this board will ever know, I'll take that as a compliment. Here's the deal, it makes no sense to blame ONE GUY when every single one of them played like stevestojan. Given the way the Pats blew this alledgedly great defense off the ball when they ran, and then turned right around and gave Brady a decade to find open receivers, the D deserves the majority of the blame. Our D singlehandedly took us out of our gameplan. Whether you believe it or not simply doesn't matter. 117488[/snapback] You backing DB simply doesn't matter either. His time is extremely limited. Take it as a compliment? I wouldn't. Its either you are right, or the rest of the world is right. And I don't think the entire rest of the world is wrong. You have an attitude like Bobby Knight, who said: "I'll listen to other people's opinions. . . even when they're wrong" But, it doesn't matter. DB will soon be gone. Can we at least agree on that? Trading up and taking JP in the 1st and trying desperately to sign Volek were clear indicators that TD realizes DB is not the long term answer.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 I think it is fairly meaningless to assign some % of the blame to a particular player in a blow-out such as this because several players performed badly enough (including Bledsoe) to deserve a mathematically impossible more than 100% of the blame. I agree with Campy that attempting to assign the majority of the blame to Bledsoe (some number over 50%) is false as simply replacing the QB even with a QB who performed well would not change the outcome of this game in my view. Even though I would not seek to assign some bizarre % of the blame to Bledsoe, this is misguided in my view because it would not influence my decision as to who to start next week at all. You bench Bledsoe if you judge starting Losman helps his development, You start Bledsoe if you think Losman develops better by working to improve his game before you start him. For now, I don't think Losman's play as a sudden mop-up reserve in the house of one of the best team's in the league is not a true indicator of his talent level. However, i did not see anything in his game tonight that indicates starting him before he is ready will be a positive for his future play and there were a lot of indications tonight from his play he probably isn't ready. Bench Bledsoe or don't bench Bledsoe it doesn't drive me as a Bills fan. What's best for developing our QB of the future should be the driver and looking at that I really doubt you start Losman next week.
BenchBledsoe Posted November 15, 2004 Author Posted November 15, 2004 I think it is fairly meaningless to assign some % of the blame to a particular player in a blow-out such as this because several players performed badly enough (including Bledsoe) to deserve a mathematically impossible more than 100% of the blame. I agree with Campy that attempting to assign the majority of the blame to Bledsoe (some number over 50%) is false as simply replacing the QB even with a QB who performed well would not change the outcome of this game in my view. Even though I would not seek to assign some bizarre % of the blame to Bledsoe, this is misguided in my view because it would not influence my decision as to who to start next week at all. You bench Bledsoe if you judge starting Losman helps his development, You start Bledsoe if you think Losman develops better by working to improve his game before you start him. For now, I don't think Losman's play as a sudden mop-up reserve in the house of one of the best team's in the league is not a true indicator of his talent level. However, i did not see anything in his game tonight that indicates starting him before he is ready will be a positive for his future play and there were a lot of indications tonight from his play he probably isn't ready. Bench Bledsoe or don't bench Bledsoe it doesn't drive me as a Bills fan. What's best for developing our QB of the future should be the driver and looking at that I really doubt you start Losman next week. 117503[/snapback] I think you lost me. . . so it is not a good thing to start JP next week or it is? But he needs playing time to get better or he might get better faster by watching? And the QB position question is not what drives you as a fan, yet it is the most important postion on a team. . . are you a politician by any chance?
Campy Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 Trading up and taking JP in the 1st and trying desperately to sign Volek were clear indicators that TD realizes DB is not the long term answer. 117498[/snapback] No argument there.
BenchBledsoe Posted November 15, 2004 Author Posted November 15, 2004 No argument there. 117509[/snapback] Okay there. . . we've had a break through. You admit that TD realizes DB is not the long term answer. So, logically, when we are mathematically eliminated, it would make sense to get JP as much playing time as he can get right? Do you agree?
Campy Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 I think you lost me. . . so it is not a good thing to start JP next week or it is? But he needs playing time to get better or he might get better faster by watching? And the QB position question is not what drives you as a fan, yet it is the most important postion on a team. . . are you a politician by any chance? 117507[/snapback] Let's see if we can decipher: The coaches will determine the best course of action for the development of Losman. If they determine his development would be improved by his starting, fine. If they determine he's not ready to start, that's fine too. They know better than we do. He doesn't really care who the QB is, because he'll root for that player to do well. At the end of the day, since he cannot change who the coaches decide to play, he'll just root for whoever is in the game to do well. He won't get complain or get mad if "his guy" is not on the field. The team is bigger than the player.
Campy Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 So, logically, when we are mathematically eliminated, it would make sense to get JP as much playing time as he can get right? Do you agree? 117511[/snapback] If he's not ready to start, then no. Starting him would make no sense, and could potentially have adverse effects on him. Also, the teams have a commitment to the league to field their most competitive team, and IMO, DB is the best QB on the roster. If Losman is "the man" next year, he'll have plenty of time to get there without making him start against St Louis.
BenchBledsoe Posted November 15, 2004 Author Posted November 15, 2004 Let's see if we can decipher: The coaches will determine the best course of action for the development of Losman. If they determine his development would be improved by his starting, fine. If they determine he's not ready to start, that's fine too. They know better than we do. He doesn't really care who the QB is, because he'll root for that player to do well. At the end of the day, since he cannot change who the coaches decide to play, he'll just root for whoever is in the game to do well. He won't get complain or get mad if "his guy" is not on the field. The team is bigger than the player. 117514[/snapback] Of course I'll root for whoever is in there, and the team as a whole obviously. However, still starting DB would be like beating your head against the wall. . . and the wall ain't budging folks. Maybe they should try something else. There is a saying that the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing under the exact same set of circumstances. . . and expecting a different result.
BenchBledsoe Posted November 15, 2004 Author Posted November 15, 2004 If he's not ready to start, then no. Starting him would make no sense, and could potentially have adverse effects on him. Also, the teams have a commitment to the league to field their most competitive team, and IMO, DB is the best QB on the roster. If Losman is "the man" next year, he'll have plenty of time to get there without making him start against St Louis. 117516[/snapback] Continuing to start a QB who isn't going to be here next year on a team that isn't going anywhere this year makes no sense. JP needs game experience this year in order to help the team next year.
AirBledsoe11 Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 Bledsoe the starter next week...NO question....
Moose Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 I do not even want Bledsoe ON THE TEAM anymore!!!! He's a pitiful moping loser whose influence can not be healthy for a young quarterback in the wings. And don't give me the "he mentored Brady and he turned out okay" argument, because it doesn't apply here. Get rid of him - and send "genius" Donahoe packing, too.
Guest Guesteroo Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 Bledsoe the starter next week...NO question.... 117529[/snapback] "Air" Bledsoe last night? 78 whopping yards worth. You're going to need a new user name in about 3-4 weeks fella.
BB27 Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 Start the future....... JP JP JP JP JP JP JP JP JP Please start Losman, Bledsoe is done, finished!
nonprophet Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 There is no way that this team is getting into the playoffs; they can't beat Pittsburgh and 9-7 isn't going to win a wildcard berth over Baltimore, Jacksonville, NY and San Diego. Start JP and use the rest of the season to prepare for the next one.
DeeRay Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 Bledsoe WILL start... and the result will be another piss poor performance.
BB27 Posted November 15, 2004 Posted November 15, 2004 If they keep starting the LOSER (I have officially changed his name from Bledsoe to LOSER) I will not be going to the games. My season ticks will be available if anyone is interested.
Recommended Posts