In Defense of Bledsoe

[Fernando Fernandez]

Although I feel strongly about Romo starting, Bledsoe is doing what is asked of him.

In other words, you can't blame Bledsoe for continuing to play, badly I might add, if Parcells orders him to do so.

It's a job he is paid to do.

As bad as it was.

Parcells needs to be held accountable.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

Confused?

 

[Boyzmamacita]

You call this defending Bledsoe?

 

[Stautner]

Although I feel strongly about Romo starting, Bledsoe is doing what is asked of him.

In other words, you can't blame Bledsoe for continuing to play, badly I might add, if Parcells orders him to do so.

It's a job he is paid to do.

As bad as it was.

Parcells needs to be held accountable.

You think Parcells orders Bledsoe to play badly?

 

[rcaldw]

In defense of Bledsoe......................

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

You think Parcells orders Bledsoe to play badly?

Parcells could have sat Bledsoe but he chose not to.

Bledsoe did the best (worst) he could.

 

[Stautner]

Parcells could have sat Bledsoe but he chose not to.

Bledsoe did the best (worst) he could.

Number One: You are ignoring the history of the NFL AND of football in general. No coach benches a QB with a long history of success based on one bad performance - or in this case, a few bad quarters.

Number 2: You are ignoring Bledsoe's history. As mentioned above, Bledsoe has a long history of NFL success - for you to suggest that this was the best Bledsoe was capable of, or that Parcells should have somehow seen it in advance, is ridiculous.

 

[Cochese]

Number One: You are ignoring the history of the NFL AND of football in general. No coach benches a QB with a long history of success based on one bad performance - or in this case, a few bad quarters.

Number 2: You are ignoring Bledsoe's history. As mentioned above, Bledsoe has a long history of NFL success - for you to suggest that this was the best Bledsoe was capable of, or that Parcells should have somehow seen it in advance, is ridiculous.

NFL success? I thought he had a long history of wearing out his welcome and being replace by younger players.

 

[Stautner]

NFL success? I thought he had a long history of wearing out his welcome and being replace by younger players.

He was replaced by Brady only because of injury and we can look back and see just how smart Buffalo was in replacing him.

Look at his career statistics, both passing and in the win column .....

 

[Cochese]

He was replaced by Brady only because of injury and we can look back and see just how smart Buffalo was in replacing him.

Look at his career statistics, both passing and in the win column .....

Yea, Bufallo made a terrible decision seeing as how we have been the playoffs the same number as times as them since he has been on the team.

Statistics dont tell the whole story with Bledsoe, never have, never will.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

Number One: You are ignoring the history of the NFL AND of football in general. No coach benches a QB with a long history of success based on one bad performance - or in this case, a few bad quarters.

Number 2: You are ignoring Bledsoe's history. As mentioned above, Bledsoe has a long history of NFL success - for you to suggest that this was the best Bledsoe was capable of, or that Parcells should have somehow seen it in advance, is ridiculous.

So what!

If the guy plays poorly and is leading your team to a loss..bench his butt...what's the big deal?

 

[Clove]

Number 2: You are ignoring Bledsoe's history. As mentioned above, Bledsoe has a long history of NFL success .

Last year we saw Bledsoe do alot of the same thing, but the excuses were that we didn't have Flozell and that we only had 1 fast receiver. When do we give up on Bledsoe, and assume that this is who he is, and it will never change?

 

[TheKey]

WE LOST TO A GOOD TEAM...

Yes Bledsoe played poorly, but I doubt he will do it again. The weather was bad and it snowballed on us. Jax was 12-4 last year, they are good. The D is the real problem. After this game our Offense is ranked 3rd and our D 13th.

 

[ctalker]

I don't know. Bledsoe just doesn't have that certain something I look for in QB's. Can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Clove]

I don't know. Bledsoe just doesn't have that certain something I look for in QB's. Can't quite put my finger on it.

"IT"

 

[lspain1]

I don't know. Bledsoe just doesn't have that certain something I look for in QB's. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Moxie!

 

[Stautner]

So what!

If the guy plays poorly and is leading your team to a loss..bench his butt...what's the big deal?

Geez, have you ever had any association with sports at all?

The big deal is that history has proven that the guy with the proven track record almost certainly gives you your best chance to win.

The big deal is that if you bench proven players when they have a single bad game, proven players wont want to play for you - either the existing ones or potential free agent acquisitions.

The big deal is that if you follow that philosophy then Parcells will have to bench Romo if he has a bad game. Then Bledsoe again if he has another one later on. Then Romo again ...... no QB goes without bad games occasionally, and playing musical QB's doesn't do much for offensive consistency and continuity.

If, over a little time, Bledsoe proves that he has lost it and cannnot lead a successful offense then go with Romo, but to suggest one game overrides years of history is not only ridiculous, it's bizarre.

 

[Cochese]

Geez, have you ever had any asociation with sports at all?

The big deal is that history has proven that the guy with the proven track record almost certainly gives you your best chance to win.

The big deal is that if you bench proven players when they have a single bad game, proven players wont want to play for you - either the existing ones or potential free agent acquisitions.

The big deal is that if you follow that philosophy then Parcells will have to bench Romo if he has a bad game. Then Bledsoe again if he has another one later on. Then Romo again ...... no QB goes without bad games occasionally, and playing musical QB's doesn't do much for offensive consistency and continuity.

If, over a little time, Bledsoe proves that he has lost it and cannnot lead a successful offense then go with Romo, but to suggest one game overrides years of history is not only ridiculous, it's bizarre.

This Bledsoe track record you speak of isnt something I would put my faith in. This track record shows he likes getting sacked and turning the ball over an inopurtune times. The only Super Bowl he ever won he was on the benching watching a real Quarterback. So what is this track record you keep bringing up?

 

[Clove]

Geez, have you ever had any association with sports at all?

The big deal is that history has proven that the guy with the proven track record almost certainly gives you your best chance to win.

The big deal is that if you bench proven players when they have a single bad game, proven players wont want to play for you - either the existing ones or potential free agent acquisitions.

The big deal is that if you follow that philosophy then Parcells will have to bench Romo if he has a bad game. Then Bledsoe again if he has another one later on. Then Romo again ...... no QB goes without bad games occasionally, and playing musical QB's doesn't do much for offensive consistency and continuity.

If, over a little time, Bledsoe proves that he has lost it and cannnot lead a successful offense then go with Romo, but to suggest one game overrides years of history is not only ridiculous, it's bizarre.

So how long do you give Bledsoe?

 

[Doomsday101]

So how long do you give Bledsoe?

Personally I would judge him over the next 3 to 4 games. Pulling any starting QB after week 1 is nothing more than knee jerk and panic reaction. The only real QB controversy I see is the one being created by some in the media and fans who tend to over react week to week. I sure would not want to see this team ran like that