Drew Bledsoe's 2nd half season stats from 1999-2005

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is total BS.

The Pats shortened up the pass patterns with Brady in order to help both him and his linemen. They slowed the game down to give themselves a chance to win in the 4th quarter. Bledsoe makes bigger plays, which suits the personnel we have in place now.

In the first half of those seasons, Drew often lit up the field. In the second half, defenses adjusted. In each season, Bledsoe's team had an OC who did not change things up, an offensive line that broke down, or a running game which could not respond to ease pressure.

The QB can't do it all alone, he needs the help of the team around him. The only two good teams in your entire list, the 2004 Bills and 2005 Cowboys, had OL's that faded miserably down the stretch.

Those were bad teams and games you never saw. I watched Bledsoe in the late 1990's engineer comebacks with a broken finger on his throwing hand in crappy weather in a crappy stadium on a team with no running back, sorry receivers, a bad defense, and a college coach on the sidelines. Bledsoe was the only positive on that team, and he managed to make things happen.

When Romo does that against anything resembling a real NFL defense, call me.

I agree that it's rediculous to say that Romo should be our starter. Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win, no doubt in my mind, by a wide margin right now.

Having said that, the stats do tell a story. To dismiss them as poor teams, poor OCs, poor whatever is just as crazy as suggesting that Romo should be our starter after one Pre-Season game. Bledsoe is what he is. He is not a guy who is going to win it for you if you put it on him. He is a guy who can help us win but he needs a great deal of help. He's not going to make players play at another level. He's not going to make everyone around him better. If everyone around him happens to be playing well, then he can get it done in good order. He is what he is. He is what we signed up for. It's counter productive to take him appart in favor of Romo who is not an experiened starting QB in the NFL. He is not my favorite QB (Bledsoe) but he is the starter, he is the best chance we have and he is the guy we went out and got knowing his history in this league.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Good work.

I wouldn't count last year's stats considering the injury to Flozell. I will say this, everybody said Bledsoe was crappy in December, but he was the reason why we won the KC game and he did play well in a must win game at Carolina.

Rich.........

 

[Mash]

Its all the OL fault....

Those numbers there are.....hmmmmmmm....Quincy Carter like.....

:laugh2:

I cant see Bledsoe not starting.......IMHO...Romo isnt the answer as a legit starter.

 

[ravidubey]

Having said that, the stats do tell a story.

No, they are an anomaly.

Facts:

- New England was just getting good when Bledsoes was forced out, they did not get good because Bledsoe left. They changed their offense because they were forced to.

- Buffalo was bad before Bledsoe got there, got better when he arrived, and did worse when he left.

- No 2005 NFL playoff team had a single LOT starter injured. New York was the only playoff team to enter the playoffs with significant OL injuries, and they were blown out 23-0.

- Dallas was 6-10 before Bledsoe and 9-7 with Bledsoe. Why else? Keyshawn Johnson? He helped, but we saw many more 8-man fronts with Testaverde in there.

To dismiss them as poor teams, poor OCs, poor whatever is just as crazy as suggesting that Romo should be our starter after one Pre-Season game.

No, to look at stats in lieu of analyzing what caused them is crazy. There are gambling stats such as "NFC East teams visiting AFC West teams in October on MNF with John Madden announcing are a combined 0-5". You can bet the trend, or use your head.

Bledsoe is what he is. He is not a guy who is going to win it for you if you put it on him.

Ye Gods, to read "____ is what __ is" once more time...

Name one QB who ever really carried a team. Maybe Tom Brady, but even he has had incredible support from a solid team and organization. Even Joe Montana had players around him that were difference-makers.

He is a guy who can help us win but he needs a great deal of help.

Every QB needs help, but few QB's can stretch the field like Drew Bledsoe still can. He just needs some semblance of a team around him, not an OL that collapses on half the pass plays.

He's not going to make players play at another level. He's not going to make everyone around him better.

So he didn't distribute 60+ balls to three different receivers last year? Am I missing something? He didn't carry the offense vs. Kansas City? He didn't force defenses to respect the pass, including the deep ball? The only reason Terry Glenn drew double coverage was because Drew could get the ball deep. Drew can hit outs and make throws back across his body to the opposite side of the field. What's more, Bledsoe isn't afraid to hand the ball off if the pass isn't working. He's easily one of the better QB's in the league, and we're lucky to have him and that he's still in decent shape.

he is the best chance we have and he is the guy we went out and got knowing his history in this league.

Here I agree with you.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't need to enter this thread, Fuzzy Lumpkins :worthy:

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, they are an anomaly.

Facts:

- New England was just getting good when Bledsoes was forced out, they did not get good because Bledsoe left. They changed their offense because they were forced to.

- Buffalo was bad before Bledsoe got there, got better when he arrived, and did worse when he left.

- No 2005 NFL playoff team had a single LOT starter injured. New York was the only playoff team to enter the playoffs with significant OL injuries, and they were blown out 23-0.

- Dallas was 6-10 before Bledsoe and 9-7 with Bledsoe. Why else? Keyshawn Johnson? He helped, but we saw many more 8-man fronts with Testaverde in there.


No, to look at stats in lieu of analyzing what caused them is crazy. There are gambling stats such as "NFC East teams visiting AFC West teams in October on MNF with John Madden announcing are a combined 0-5". You can bet the trend, or use your head.

Ye Gods, to read "____ is what __ is" once more time...

Name one QB who ever really carried a team. Maybe Tom Brady, but even he has had incredible support from a solid team and organization. Even Joe Montana had players around him that were difference-makers.

Every QB needs help, but few QB's can stretch the field like Drew Bledsoe still can. He just needs some semblance of a team around him, not an OL that collapses on half the pass plays.

So he didn't distribute 60+ balls to three different receivers last year? Am I missing something? He didn't carry the offense vs. Kansas City? He didn't force defenses to respect the pass, including the deep ball? The only reason Terry Glenn drew double coverage was because Drew could get the ball deep. Drew can hit outs and make throws back across his body to the opposite side of the field. What's more, Bledsoe isn't afraid to hand the ball off if the pass isn't working. He's easily one of the better QB's in the league, and we're lucky to have him and that he's still in decent shape.

Here I agree with you.

I would rather you didn't. What I said was not wrong. You write a great deal refuting what?

His statistics are what they are. You can explain whatever away for whatever reason but it doesn't change the facts that this is what was produced by Bledsoe.

The sad part of this whole thing is that you are so busy trying to prove your point that you completely miss the point. He is what he is. He is no more or less.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

I would rather you didn't. What I said was not wrong. You write a great deal refuting what?

His statistics are what they are. You can explain whatever away for whatever reason but it doesn't change the facts that this is what was produced by Bledsoe.

The sad part of this whole thing is that you are so busy trying to prove your point that you completely miss the point. He is what he is. He is no more or less.

I'm glad some folks realize that Drew Bledsoe ain't no Troy Aikman.

You'd think this guy was going to Canton the way some folks pimp him.

Here are some fun stats for everyone to consider since folks are suddenly on the "it's the preseason" kick:

7/11 56 yards 1 TD 0 INT 106.62 QB Rating

12/15 154 yards 1 TD 0 INT 131.67 QB Rating

What were these numbers, you Romo haters ask?

They were the numbers of Drew Bledsoe (2005) and Tony Romo (2006) against the Seattle starters in that "vanilla preseason defense." I'm sure Bledsoe had the better numbers, after all, he has been in the league for over 10 years and can go through a basic zone like swiss cheese.

Oh wait.. nevermind. Romo had the better numbers!

(P.S. Bledsoe had Keyshawn, Crayton, and Glenn too! Romo had Glenn for a bare minimum of plays and no TO.)

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Good work.

I wouldn't count last year's stats considering the injury to Flozell. I will say this, everybody said Bledsoe was crappy in December, but he was the reason why we won the KC game and he did play well in a must win game at Carolina.

Rich.........

Yeah, I admit, Bledsoe can win some games. Don't get me wrong. I will give the man some props, he's better than a lot of QBs in this league. I just think he's not an elite QB, and if Bill & Jerry think Romo can do the same job, then heck, go for it! We have the defense to see us out.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

No, they are an anomaly.

Facts:

- New England was just getting good when Bledsoes was forced out, they did not get good because Bledsoe left. They changed their offense because they were forced to.

They were 0-2 with Bledsoe starting, as soon as Brady walked on, they took off! Coincidence?

- Buffalo was bad before Bledsoe got there, got better when he arrived, and did worse when he left.

He still had players like Moulds, Price, McGahee, Henry and others on offense. Buffalo also had a pretty darn good defense not too long ago. They were #2 in 2004 and 2003 in yards allowed thanks to a unit formed by Greg Williams. (Remember, that guy who is making the Skins look like Playoff contenders.) They were one of the league's best with Takeo Spikes leading the way.

- No 2005 NFL playoff team had a single LOT starter injured. New York was the only playoff team to enter the playoffs with significant OL injuries, and they were blown out 23-0.

Didn't Ben Roethlisberger lose some of his linemen during the regular season last year? Yes, they were back by the Playoffs, but the Steelers didn't slump like the Cowboys because of it.

- Dallas was 6-10 before Bledsoe and 9-7 with Bledsoe. Why else? Keyshawn Johnson? He helped, but we saw many more 8-man fronts with Testaverde in there.

Wrong. Dallas had a much better defense than they did with Vinny Testaverde, that's the main reason why they were so much better. Vinny was already down 3 touchdowns in some of his games.

 

[iceberg]

Except that the 2000 Patriots went 5-11 with Bledsoe then the 2001 Patriots went 11-5 and Super Bowl victory the very next year.

oh stop it - bad teams. it has to be bad teams.

 

[itoldyouSOE]

I'm glad some folks realize that Drew Bledsoe ain't no Troy Aikman.

You'd think this guy was going to Canton the way some folks pimp him.

Here are some fun stats for everyone to consider since folks are suddenly on the "it's the preseason" kick:

7/11 56 yards 1 TD 0 INT 106.62 QB Rating

12/15 154 yards 1 TD 0 INT 131.67 QB Rating

What were these numbers, you Romo haters ask?

They were the numbers of Drew Bledsoe (2005) and Tony Romo (2006) against the Seattle starters in that "vanilla preseason defense." I'm sure Bledsoe had the better numbers, after all, he has been in the league for over 10 years and can go through a basic zone like swiss cheese.

Oh wait.. nevermind. Romo had the better numbers!

(P.S. Bledsoe had Keyshawn, Crayton, and Glenn too! Romo had Glenn for a bare minimum of plays and no TO.)

How many starters on the Seattle defense who played in the game against Bledsoe (or the Super Bowl) played in the PRESEASON game that Romo played in?

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

How many starters on the Seattle defense who played in the game against Bledsoe (or the Super Bowl) played in the PRESEASON game that Romo played in?

Well, Grant Wistrom probably played that game. (One of the most overrated DEs ever.) But the Seahawks also didn't have Julian Peterson that year. So if we find one starter that didn't play that season, am I supposed to take off 50 points from Romo's QB rating? Come on fellas, some of you are really spinning this. You want to claim that preseason means nothing, and now it means everything when Romo put up much better preseason numbers against the same team than Bledsoe did.

 

[ravidubey]

He is what he is.

Uunnhghh.

They were 0-2 with Bledsoe starting, as soon as Brady walked on, they took off! Coincidence?

Seymour was a rookie. It took him time to acclimate, but once he did they created an elite defense. Combined with a very conservative offense and an easy schedule they got into the playoffs. Tuck rule call and a Bledsoe save later they were in the Superbowl.

He still had players like Moulds, Price, McGahee, Henry and others on offense. Buffalo also had a pretty darn good defense not too long ago. They were #2 in 2004 and 2003 in yards allowed thanks to a unit formed by Greg Williams. (Remember, that guy who is making the Skins look like Playoff contenders.) They were one of the league's best with Takeo Spikes leading the way.

My god, so selective. The Bills in 2002 had a terrible defense. They were convinced they had an elite QB in Bledsoe and thus ditched Peerless Price and their best TE in 2003. But every QB needs targets and protection. That same year they also failed to adequately deal with the OL problems that plagued them the year before because they banked on Mike Williams starting (he is currently out of the league). Their defense got better in 2003, but the same problems (lack of consistent running, pass blocking, and no receivers besides Moulds) killed them. In 2004 things were at their worst; The OL was still bad and there was no intermediate target to throw to. The only saving grace was Willis McGahee, and so the Bills ran the ball.

Didn't Ben Roethlisberger lose some of his linemen during the regular season last year? Yes, they were back by the Playoffs, but the Steelers didn't slump like the Cowboys because of it.

Never his left OT and the Steelers slumped badly in the middle of the year, losing six games before going on a tear to end the season.

Wrong. Dallas had a much better defense than they did with Vinny Testaverde, that's the main reason why they were so much better. Vinny was already down 3 touchdowns in some of his games.

It was better, but it wore down in many ways just like the 2004 defense did. The Cowboys could not stop the run in the second half of 2005 nor could they (outside of the Carolina game) generate much of a pass rush. During the second half, Jason Ferguson was a bum, Anthony Henry was a shell of the player who started the year, Dat Nguyen had retired, Al Singleton was out, and two rookies faded on the DL down the stretch. Demarcus Ware hit a 10 game slump and really struggled vs. the run, and our FS still couldn't cover. Brady James stepped up, but it was one finger in the dam. We will see the fruits of 2005's defensive growing pains in 2006.

In 2005, it was clear that Dallas beat Kansas City mainly because of Drew Bledsoe and not because of the defense. Without Bledsoe, we probably wouldn't have beaten Philadelphia in either game last year.
His ability to spread the field gave us a chance to compete.

 

[JMead]

TruBlue.. It looks like you look at stats and come up with your own assumptions. Here are some facts about the " vaunted " Bills defense. I will use 2004 as an example of how overrated they were.

The first game of 2004 they allowed the Jaguars to convert 4 4th downs with the 4th one being a TD pass as time expired to lose the game.

A game against the Jets where the Jets were leading 13-0 but then all of a sudden the offense came alive and Bledsoe hit 2 deep TD passes to put the BIlls up by 1. Defense comes on the field and the Jets move the ball down the field like they are out there by themselves. They make the FG and win the game.

As for the Cowboys.. The defense was better than the year before but how many of those 5 comebacks did they allow more than 20 points? It was 3 I think but the Panthers had 19 points or something. So .. that is a 3 game difference right there.

The Pats did start out 0-2 ( Brady played a bit but didnt do anything against the Jets either ) but look how bad the running game was those 2 games. I dont think Smith had 50 yrds total in the first 2 games. Then look at how many games the Patriots won where Brady had 0 TDs or more INTs than TDs.

If you are telling me that Bledsoe sould not have mirrored the medicore 2800 yards and 18 TDs on that team ( something he did on far worse team in the Bills ) then you need a reality check.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The fact is, which some folks on this board need to realize is that none of us "sees" these quarterbacks with the same perspective as the coaching staff of the Dallas Cowboys. We're out of our minds if we think we can label one guy the "sure-fire-starter" and the other guy "totally unknown until he plays some real games" and do that with any assemblance of accuracy.

While I dismissed what Mickey Spags said about Romo here a couple weeks ago... we're now hearing this same thing over and over and over again.

The truth is there is something to this story.

No doubt this kid Romo is showing the coaching stuff something very positive that we don't get the chance to see.

To just dismiss Romo out of hand because he hasn't appeared in any meaningful games is absurd.

Someone important in the food chain of the Dallas Cowboys sees something special in Romo and the Drewpies had better take notice. And while a quick put down of Romo's history up to this point might make you feel better at the moment I'm really starting to believe that Romo will have the opportunity to QB some meaningful games for this team-- this year.

 

[peplaw06]

Well, Grant Wistrom probably played that game. (One of the most overrated DEs ever.) But the Seahawks also didn't have Julian Peterson that year. So if we find one starter that didn't play that season, am I supposed to take off 50 points from Romo's QB rating? Come on fellas, some of you are really spinning this. You want to claim that preseason means nothing, and now it means everything when Romo put up much better preseason numbers against the same team than Bledsoe did.

Say what you will, but a 106 QB rating?? I'll take it.