Is Bledsoe a Hall Of Famer?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Where to begin?

This is fun (really). Anyone that thinks that's football 101 needs to be sent back to the remedial class.

Once again we see how easily quotes can be misinterpreted when taken out of contex. And once again you seem to have missed the point.

Yeah, Drew's sacks/fumbles create poor field position, but his tendency to hold the ball is probably also responsible for Drew becoming the youngest player to reach 40,000 yards passing as well. Of course his style comes with a risk (I'm not denying that), but you're ignoring the reward. There's a fine line between patience in the pocket and holding the ball too long.

You use Elway's time on poor Denver teams to make a favorable comparison to Drew's experience, only to follow it up by criticizing Drew for not having won a Lombardi or two like Elway without acknowledging the dramatically improved supporting cast that surrounded him during said title run.

With the miserable Bills OL and below avg WRs as a constant, you can see what a difference merely adding a productive RB has on a QB's efficiency by looking at Drew's #s with Henry (5 TDs to 7 INTs) compared to McGahee (15:9) in the backfield just last year. The relative supporting casts are extremely significant when making these kinds of comparisons in a team sport.

We can compare and discuss other aspects of these QB's games if you'd like, but allow me to attempt to stay on topic here. If you trace our discussion back to it's genesis you'll see I wasn't foolish enough to attempt to compare Drew's complete career #s to one of the top-10 QBs of all time (Elway). Our disagreement specifically addressed efficiency (or lack thereof).

Drew's career #s aren't just volume stats. He got there with great efficiency. Even though you acknowledged earlier, "Sacks can not be accuratly factored in because it's always a question of where the responsability lies" you insist on including them in this comparison. M'kay, here goes.

First, it should be noted that most knowledgeable observers define a QB's efficiency by the # of pass attempts required for each TD (and/or their TD to INT ratio). By that standard Bledsoe is among the elite all-time. Better than Manning. Better than Marino.

While I disagree it's appropriate to include sacks/fumbles for comparing a QB's efficiency (for the reasons you've already pointed out yourself), I will entertain this notion that Drew's fumbles knock him from being one of the most efficient QBs ever to being described as inefficient.

You've given Elway credit for 333 TDs, while NFL.com, STATs.com and pro-football-reference.com all list his total at 300. I'll be using their number for this comparison.

Elway fumbled the ball every 3.8 sacks. Drew every 3.9. Advantage: Bledsoe. Even when we combine INTs and fumbles and define this number as 'potential turnovers,' Elway was responsible (for sake of this comparison) for one potential turnover every 20.0 pass attempts. Bledsoe has only coughed the ball once every 21.2 attempts. Even by this standard Bledsoe was the more efficient QB (not better overall mind you).

Origins, an interesting concept.

Review this thread and you will see that I do not dismiss the possability of Bledsoe eventually making the HOF. You would recommend that I do my homework before I post. I would recommend that you review the post before you give advice.

Efficiancy is all well and good but the point being made was that Elway succeeded on more then just statistic. Question: Why is it that by the time Elway had played 10 years, he was already considered to be a shoe in as an HOF QB? The same can not be said for Bledsoe. Like it or not, rather you acknowledge it or not, Bledsoe is not Elway. The fact that you try to use Elway as justification is, in itself, faulty. Elway was more then just a guy who put up numbers. At this point, Bledsoe is not.

333, total number of TDs. 300 passing, 33 rushing. Bledsoe's numbers, 224 passing and 6 rushing. Total of 230. However, I'm not surprised you elect to use the number 300. You should really do your homework before you post.

I use Elways experience on poor Bronco teams to illustrate the fact that his numbers are superior, under simular conditions and by the time he was at a like point in his career, he was already considered a future HOF QB.

Yes, we disagree on the Sacks/Fumbles. For the record, I never said he wasn't efficiant. I said the sacks and fumbles preclude him of being efficiant to the point of HOF status, at this point in his career. You don't really get the complete picture do you? Is that a matter of choice or is there something else preventing this? No matter.

In the final analysis, the fact still remains. Bledsoe is not viewed, by most, as a HOF QB at this point in his career. In order to get in, I believe he has to win a championship or two. Numbers won't do it unless he surpases all records and I don't see that happening.

Your view of Bledsoe, IMO, is amusing but that's pretty much where it ends. He is not a HOF QB right now. If his career ends today, it is my opinion that he will not make it. His only chance, IMO, is to win a championship. You dispute this, it is your right. However, I would not recommend you hold out for his induction speach. It could be a very long wait.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

For the record, anyone who bothers to go back and read the entire thread will note I said:

"Is Bledsoe a lock for the HOF? No."

And later added:

"If HOF eligibility were based on stats Lynn Swann, Joe Nammath and many others wouldn't be there now. Stats lie. ... You can learn a lot looking at stats, but they're hardly an absolute. That's only one piece of the pie. Intangibles don't show up on a stat sheet. Think big picture. Gotta look past the numbers."

The only thing I've taken issue with is mickgreen58's original comment that Bledsoe's HOF potential wasn't even worthy of discussion, and ABQCOWBOYS' insistance that Bledsoe is not an efficient passer ("You have no credible evidence to support your position on fumbles or sacks"). Compared to Elway, Marino, Manning etc. Drew compares favorably in this particular aspect of their game. I never said Bledsoe compares favorably overall to the best to ever play the position.

Wow, this is straight out BS. Of course, I've notice you do that. Produce the post I said Bledsoe was not an efficiant passer.

You don't have credible evidence. You compare him to Elway, Marino and Manning. One of which, is still setting records and will get better and the other two, far supperior players by anybodies standard. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news here but this comparison is still not conclusive of the point your trying to make. The discussion is about Bledsoe being deserving of HOF induction. Your supporting this or not?

 

[alpha]

Depends how far back you go in evaluating him. Last game he looked great. The last two years, he looked awful. Let's hope we see more of the guy that showed up in SD and less of the guy that got chased out of Buffalo. For now, I'm still skeptical. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

That's not entirely true (although I do see why you'd want to cut it off at the "last two years" considering his Pro Bowl performance three years ago).

Nobody wanted to play the Bills down the stretch last season. Bledsoe led that team to a 9-2 record once McGahee finally started. Same miserable OL. Same avg WRs. But with a legit threat in the backfield (compare McGahee's 4.1 ypc avg to Henry's 3.5 ypc avg) Drew went from a 5:7 TD to INT ratio with Henry starting to 15:9 with McGahee (not bad for playing behind an OL that holds the ignominious record for sacks given up the last three years).

So far this season, with an improved supporting cast, Drew's performance hasn't waivered from his impressive finish last year.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

That's not entirely true (although I do see why you'd want to cut it off at the "last two years" considering his Pro Bowl performance three years ago).

Nobody wanted to play the Bills down the stretch last season. Bledsoe led that team to a 9-2 record once McGahee finally started. Same miserable OL. Same avg WRs. But with a legit threat in the backfield (compare McGahee's 4.1 ypc avg to Henry's 3.5 ypc avg) Drew went from a 5:7 TD to INT ratio with Henry starting to 15:9 with McGahee (not bad for playing behind an OL that holds the ignominious record for sacks given up the last three years).

So far this season, with an improved supporting cast, Drew's performance hasn't waivered from his impressive finish last year.

I'll give you that he looked much better in the second half of last season (as a complement to the defense and running game, rather than the center-piece of the offense). But if you're going to bring up 2002, you should acknowledge that he looked much worse in the last half of that season (8 TD: 10 INT) than in the first (16 TD: 5 INT).

At any rate, one needs a cut-off point, and given that the issue was whether Bledsoe's play had slipped, one would naturally choose a point at which it appears it began to decline. That has nothing to do with holding anything against Bledsoe. It has everything to do with contesting the claim at issue.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's not entirely true (although I do see why you'd want to cut it off at the "last two years" considering his Pro Bowl performance three years ago).

Nobody wanted to play the Bills down the stretch last season. Bledsoe led that team to a 9-2 record once McGahee finally started. Same miserable OL. Same avg WRs. But with a legit threat in the backfield (compare McGahee's 4.1 ypc avg to Henry's 3.5 ypc avg) Drew went from a 5:7 TD to INT ratio with Henry starting to 15:9 with McGahee (not bad for playing behind an OL that holds the ignominious record for sacks given up the last three years).

So far this season, with an improved supporting cast, Drew's performance hasn't waivered from his impressive finish last year.

I believe his point is very valid. Makes no difference how you color it up, Bledsoe is going to have to play a good three season of exceptional football to make a case statistically.

I can live with "so far" but remember, so far is only 1 game.

 

[alpha]

ABQ,

Unfortunately, I can see by your latest posts you may be taking this personally. Please don't. I can understand why you might considering the tone of my last message directed toward you. I guess I took exception to your "football 101" reference.

I'm not ducking or ignoring you. My response may take some time, and I gotta run. It really has been fun. Until tomorrow...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ,

Unfortunately, I can see by your latest posts you may be taking this personally. Please don't. I can understand why you might considering the tone of my last message directed toward you. I guess I took exception to your "football 101" reference.

I'm not ducking or ignoring you. My response may take some time, and I gotta run. It really has been fun. Until tomorrow...

Fair enough. I can wait till tomorrow.

I do take offense at the fact your post suggests I do not think Bledsoe is a good QB. In fact, I have liked Bledsoe for may years. I absolutly have questions about his ability to produce over the long haul. I also have questions about his ability to stay healthy considering his age and they way he is playing.

I do not distpute the fact that Bledsoe has been a good QB over the body of his career. I simply think that he is not an HOF QB, at this point. Very few QBs make the HOF unles they win a championship. There are a few. Marino, Fouts, Tarkenten and Jim Kelly come to mind. Of the four mentioned, Kelly is the best bet for comparison IMO. Marino, Fouts and Tarkenten were all record breakers. Kelly was not. Kelly was a very good QB but I'm not certain he would have gotten in had he not had 4 straight SB apperances on his resume.

I do not believe Bledsoe will break all the records. I think he has been very good over his career but not great. There is no defining moment to hang your hat on with Bledsoe. This is why I think he needs to win one in order to get the consideration he will need.

 

[Grizz]

I agree with most posters on the thread. Bledsoe needs 3 more good years and a Lombardi trophy to be sure of getting in. If he put up 5 more years of really good numbers and had some success (playoffs/super bowl loss) then he would get serious consideration just based on the career numbers he would put up.

A couple of items to consider:

At one time Bledsoe was considered one of the elite in the game. You don't go to the Pro Bowl 3 out of 4 years (1994, 1996, 1997), take your team to the playoffs in those same years and go to the SB in '96 and not be thought of as an elite QB, especially with the numbers he was putting up at that time.

What hurts Bledsoe more than anything is the "Tom Brady Affair". New England had just come off a 5-11 season, and the team was losing games early the next year when Bledsoe got hurt. Bada bing, Brady comes in, leads team to Super Bowl and everyone wondered why the team was awful with Bledsoe and great with Brady. Bledsoe's reputation was now damaged goods.

In Buffalo, he had one statistically great year, then things fell apart.

So whad'ya got? A QB with great stats, who was once thought of as part of the elite, who fell from grace and no one is quite sure why.

America loves a comeback story. If Bledsoe can bring America's Team back to the top of the mountain, with the numbers he has and 1 SB win plus 1 super bowl appearance, they will let him in.

 

[Juke99]

Just a quick point for Mr Nors...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mu...2005/09/15/gallery.qbwrtandems/content.6.html

Notice, #5 all time combination QB/WR...but more importantly, read the text about how their numbers don't compare to modern numbers "because of the way the game was played in their era"...and then throw away the stats you cite when comparing Namath to modern day QB's.

 

[Nors]

I never once compare pre 80'S Stats versus post 80'S STATS ACTUALLY.

I called Namath out for throwing 40 more Interceptions than TD's. That sux in any era.

 

[Nors]

I agree with most posters on the thread. Bledsoe needs 3 more good years and a Lombardi trophy to be sure of getting in. If he put up 5 more years of really good numbers and had some success (playoffs/super bowl loss) then he would get serious consideration just based on the career numbers he would put up.

A couple of items to consider:

At one time Bledsoe was considered one of the elite in the game. You don't go to the Pro Bowl 3 out of 4 years (1994, 1996, 1997), take your team to the playoffs in those same years and go to the SB in '96 and not be thought of as an elite QB, especially with the numbers he was putting up at that time.

What hurts Bledsoe more than anything is the "Tom Brady Affair". New England had just come off a 5-11 season, and the team was losing games early the next year when Bledsoe got hurt. Bada bing, Brady comes in, leads team to Super Bowl and everyone wondered why the team was awful with Bledsoe and great with Brady. Bledsoe's reputation was now damaged goods.

In Buffalo, he had one statistically great year, then things fell apart.

So whad'ya got? A QB with great stats, who was once thought of as part of the elite, who fell from grace and no one is quite sure why.

America loves a comeback story. If Bledsoe can bring America's Team back to the top of the mountain, with the numbers he has and 1 SB win plus 1 super bowl appearance, they will let him in.

thats about exactly my take

 

[Nors]

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=161

Namath - 173 Td's 220 Inters - 65.5 Passer rating. Obviously only in due to personality and the Win.

I don't fight that one as much as Swannie - not even the best receiver on his team. Slightly above average player on a dynasty vastly overhyped.

 

[alpha]

Wow, this is straight out BS. Of course, I've notice you do that. Produce the post I said Bledsoe was not an efficiant passer.

You don't have credible evidence.

Allow me to refresh your memory. Here are a few examples:

Page 6 of this thread: "Bledsoe has a very unimpressive TO ratio himself."

Page 7 of this thread: "The key point here is Interceptions as opposed to actual INTs and fumbles. If you take these into consideration, his numbers are unimpressive."

Page 12 of this thread: "I was surprised to see Alpha suggest that this player was efficiant to the point of Hall consideration. I just didn't see that."

You compare him to Elway, Marino and Manning. One of which, is still setting records and will get better and the other two, far supperior players by anybodies standard. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news here but this comparison is still not conclusive of the point your trying to make. The discussion is about Bledsoe being deserving of HOF induction. Your supporting this or not?

I understand you run the risk of getting flamed any time you invoke the names of the all-time greats in comparisons with borderline players. The only aspect of their game I meant to compare was efficiency. Again, Drew can't hold a candle to the overall HOF credentials of Elway, Marino and even Manning. But in terms of Drew's efficiency, that facet of his game (by just about any measure) compares favorably to some of the best to ever play the position.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Allow me to refresh your memory. Here are a few examples:

Page 6 of this thread: "Bledsoe has a very unimpressive TO ratio himself."

Page 7 of this thread: "The key point here is Interceptions as opposed to actual INTs and fumbles. If you take these into consideration, his numbers are unimpressive."

Page 12 of this thread: "I was surprised to see Alpha suggest that this player was efficiant to the point of Hall consideration. I just didn't see that."




I understand you run the risk of getting flamed any time you invoke the names of the all-time greats in comparisons with borderline players. The only aspect of their game I meant to compare was efficiency. Again, Drew can't hold a candle to the overall HOF credentials of Elway, Marino and even Manning. But in terms of Drew's efficiency, that facet of his game (by just about any measure) compares favorably to some of the best to ever play the position.

OK, allow me to refresh your memory. The question was, where did I say he was not efficiant?

The answer, clearly is nowhere.

His TouchDown/Turn Over ration is 230/229. This, to me, is unimpressive. You simply must do better here.


I would have to say that I am still surprised by your reaction here.



Let us assume that his efficency is as you say it is. The first question I asked you was, "How does this equate to the discussion at hand?" The discussion here is, "Does Bledsoe deserve to be in the HOF?"

It is obviouse that he does not compare to the other great QBs you mentioned but since the issue is his HOF qualifications and you illustrate your point with these other QBs, it would seem logical to review them as HOF QBs and look at the entire picture. Obviously, it was not there efficency, alone, that got them there. So again, coming full circle here, what does this have to do with qualifying him as a HOF QB?

 

[alpha]

Origins, an interesting concept.

Review this thread and you will see that I do not dismiss the possability of Bledsoe eventually making the HOF. You would recommend that I do my homework before I post. I would recommend that you review the post before you give advice.

Seems we might both be guilty of a little short-term memory loss. No biggie.

Efficiancy is all well and good but the point being made was that Elway succeeded on more then just statistic. Question: Why is it that by the time Elway had played 10 years, he was already considered to be a shoe in as an HOF QB? The same can not be said for Bledsoe. Like it or not, rather you acknowledge it or not, Bledsoe is not Elway. The fact that you try to use Elway as justification is, in itself, faulty. Elway was more then just a guy who put up numbers. At this point, Bledsoe is not.

Speaking of reviewing this thread, you'll note I never said "Bledsoe is Elway." In fact, I can admit he isn't even close. That wasn't my point. Again, Bledsoe is no lock for the Hall, but his career efficiency is unquestionable in comparison with some of the most respected HOFers.

333, total number of TDs. 300 passing, 33 rushing. Bledsoe's numbers, 224 passing and 6 rushing. Total of 230. However, I'm not surprised you elect to use the number 300. You should really do your homework before you post.

Touché. I had that coming.

I use Elways experience on poor Bronco teams to illustrate the fact that his numbers are superior, under simular conditions and by the time he was at a like point in his career, he was already considered a future HOF QB.

Yes, we disagree on the Sacks/Fumbles. For the record, I never said he wasn't efficiant. I said the sacks and fumbles preclude him of being efficiant to the point of HOF status, at this point in his career. You don't really get the complete picture do you? Is that a matter of choice or is there something else preventing this? No matter.

Actually, you did say Bledsoe wasn't efficient (otherwise we probably never have this discussion). See the quotes in my last post. Yes, we disagree on sacks/fumbles, but not with regard to your comparison of Bledsoe and Elway's respective careers in their entirety.

In the final analysis, the fact still remains. Bledsoe is not viewed, by most, as a HOF QB at this point in his career. In order to get in, I believe he has to win a championship or two. Numbers won't do it unless he surpases all records and I don't see that happening.

Your view of Bledsoe, IMO, is amusing but that's pretty much where it ends. He is not a HOF QB right now. If his career ends today, it is my opinion that he will not make it. His only chance, IMO, is to win a championship. You dispute this, it is your right. However, I would not recommend you hold out for his induction speach. It could be a very long wait.

I've already conceded Drew is no lock for the Hall. But the foundation of potential HOF credentials is there, and his story has yet to be completed. Overall I'd have to agree. He isn't there yet. If you find that amusing, so be it. To each his own I suppose. But I wouldn't be so quick to discount that induction speech after watching the NFC Offensive Player of the Week's performance last Sunday. I wouldn't put him in today, but I sure wouldn't bet against him.

 

[alpha]

OK, allow me to refresh your memory. The question was, where did I say he was not efficiant?

The answer, clearly is nowhere.

Now it seems you're just playing semantics. Any objective person that reads your post in this thread on page 12 in it's entrety (I only quoted a small part) will see the implication is clearly there. How else are we supposed to interpret, "I do believe that efficiantsy is pretty important. Aikman was the poster boy of this. Bledsoe, well, I don't see it."

His TouchDown/Turn Over ration is 230/229. This, to me, is unimpressive. You simply must do better here.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I wonder how many HOF voters consider TD:TO ratios (as opposed to TD:INT ratios). Even Elway's #s (333:363) look unimpressive when viewed in this light. Personally, I don't put as much stock as you do in this standard.

I would have to say that I am still surprised by your reaction here.

Let us assume that his efficency is as you say it is. The first question I asked you was, "How does this equate to the discussion at hand?" The discussion here is, "Does Bledsoe deserve to be in the HOF?"

It is obviouse that he does not compare to the other great QBs you mentioned but since the issue is his HOF qualifications and you illustrate your point with these other QBs, it would seem logical to review them as HOF QBs and look at the entire picture. Obviously, it was not there efficency, alone, that got them there. So again, coming full circle here, what does this have to do with qualifying him as a HOF QB?

At this point we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Of course you have to look at the entire picture when discussing the Hall (which is probably why I said he is no lock for the HOF in the first message I posted in this thread), but efficiency is one of the most important factors to consider in regard to the QB position (especially when you're talking about a player most already recognize as a "volume QB" in the first palce), IMHO.

You specifically used my handle when commenting on how you couldn't see how I could possibly suggest Drew was an efficient QB. I was responding directly to that. I stand by what I said. Strictly in terms of efficiency, Bledsoe has performed at a HOF level.

 

[alpha]

I'll give you that he looked much better in the second half of last season (as a complement to the defense and running game, rather than the center-piece of the offense). But if you're going to bring up 2002, you should acknowledge that he looked much worse in the last half of that season (8 TD: 10 INT) than in the first (16 TD: 5 INT).

Fair enough. His lackluster performance down the stretch in '02 is a good and relevant point.

At any rate, one needs a cut-off point, and given that the issue was whether Bledsoe's play had slipped, one would naturally choose a point at which it appears it began to decline. That has nothing to do with holding anything against Bledsoe. It has everything to do with contesting the claim at issue.

Point well taken.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Seems we might both be guilty of a little short-term memory loss. No biggie.



Speaking of reviewing this thread, you'll note I never said "Bledsoe is Elway." In fact, I can admit he isn't even close. That wasn't my point. Again, Bledsoe is no lock for the Hall, but his career efficiency is unquestionable in comparison with some of the most respected HOFers.



Touché. I had that coming.



Actually, you did say Bledsoe wasn't efficient (otherwise we probably never have this discussion). See the quotes in my last post. Yes, we disagree on sacks/fumbles, but not with regard to your comparison of Bledsoe and Elway's respective careers in their entirety.



I've already conceded Drew is no lock for the Hall. But the foundation of potential HOF credentials is there, and his story has yet to be completed. Overall I'd have to agree. He isn't there yet. If you find that amusing, so be it. To each his own I suppose. But I wouldn't be so quick to discount that induction speech after watching the NFC Offensive Player of the Week's performance last Sunday. I wouldn't put him in today, but I sure wouldn't bet against him.

My statement was that his efficency was not HOF status. I can conceed that this can be looked at as if to say, How does his efficency compare to other HOF QBs?" I will stipulate on this, assuming this is how you preceived the statement. In actuallity, my statement was ment to say, his efficiency will not get him in the HOF. He's got as many TOs as he does TDs, for the most part. It's going to be an issue for him. In order for him to get real consideration, IMO, he has to do more.

I recognize that you did not say Bledsoe is Elway. This was wise. On the other hand, if your going to use each QBs efficency and draw dotted line conclusion with regard to his HOF consideration, it is not out of bounds to ask the question, what else? You open the door for further comparison, if for no other reason then to find a basis to validate the Efficency Theory.

In regards to his credentials, well, my very first post in this thread was in response to the first question asked.

Verbatim:

"Only if he wins a SuperBowl IMO."

I honestly don't see the points of contention.

 

[dallasfan31]

he will get in.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

he will get in.

How can anyone but cower in the face of such penetrating analysis?

Seriously, though, you're supposed to put an exclamation point on bold predictions of this nature with words to the effect of "Book it."