Pats Fan - Now you know what we know

[Zaxor]

I would argue that beating the snot out of someone requires a bit more than a higher completion percentage which carries QB rating.

Drew passed for about 3 times as many yards in twice as many games. 2932 to 1017.

Bledsoe did get sacked significantly more and clearly took more chances throwing more picks.

BUT it would also be sensible to note: A) Bledsoe was far better with McGahee starting and B) he had the Bills 1 game shy of the playoffs.

It also might make sense to note the current right side Bennie Anderson and Maike Gandy were free agent additions especially if comparing protections.

see what I am saying it is ALWAYS something isn't it...something always happened and its just was not Bledsoe's fault

but anyway how about int%... and who Cares if he throws for 80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 yards...yards mean nothing... when it comes to Bledsoe... he will always have yards but they do not translate into anything...do they!?

In fact it maybe part of his problem...

also in Bledsoe's 13 years (not counting this year because it is not over and not counting the year Brady took over with NE) 8 of 11 years he either finished last or next to last in his division 8 out of 11 think about that

 

[jterrell]

Nice comparison stat there man. But like Pats Fan said, there is no changing minds about Bledsoe. It was the same deal with Quincy, till he was booted out of here.

Everyone see the great throws he can make and are in love with that. Rest of the drawbacks are now throw out of the way. Its amazing that someone can watch the tape and say that Bledsoe doesn't hold the ball that much.

Well, this is going to be all off-season Debate with 100s of threads discussed to death about this. And you know what, next year, Bledsoe will start regardless of what BP mouths about competition in TC, if he even says that, and we will be the same thing next year about OL and protection.

The humor in this take and the point being made originally is that folks are intelligent football minds yet ignore the painfully obvious.

Drew Bledsoe was asked to carry that Buffalo team with Travis Henry at RB.
Quincy Carter here and Kelly Holcomb there were asked to come along for the ride but not make mistakes. It isn't even close as to which guy NFL teams would prefer.

The arguments with Carter like the arguments now are about who is the best player for the job. Carter was the best QB on the roster here after his rookie season. Bledsoe is the best QB on the roster now by a mile. Both were imperfect and Carter clearly blew his roster spot but when and if a guy is on the roster they have to be judged according to that.

A Pats fan started this thread and yes we would all be quite glad to have Tom Brady. Congratz. You got lucky. Just blind luck tho was all it was. Brady was never drafted to be a competitor against Bledsoe for the job or pushed into a competition at all.

Drew Bledsoe has very seldomly been outplayed this season. And he has been soundly outplayed 1 time.

 

[Concord]

If it wasnt for Desomnd Howard,Parcells and Bledsoe have a SB in NE. And there is no talk aabout how great Mike Holmgren is. He is overrated. He has taken 7 years to build that team out in Seattle.

If it wasn't for Scott Norwood... Parcells would be 1-2 in Super Bowls.

 

[RCowboyFan]

The humor in this take and the point being made originally is that folks are intelligent football minds yet ignore the painfully obvious.

Drew Bledsoe was asked to carry that Buffalo team with Travis Henry at RB.
Quincy Carter here and Kelly Holcomb there were asked to come along for the ride but not make mistakes. It isn't even close as to which guy NFL teams would prefer.

The arguments with Carter like the arguments now are about who is the best player for the job. Carter was the best QB on the roster here after his rookie season. Bledsoe is the best QB on the roster now by a mile. Both were imperfect and Carter clearly blew his roster spot but when and if a guy is on the roster they have to be judged according to that.

A Pats fan started this thread and yes we would all be quite glad to have Tom Brady. Congratz. You got lucky. Just blind luck tho was all it was. Brady was never drafted to be a competitor against Bledsoe for the job or pushed into a competition at all.

Drew Bledsoe has very seldomly been outplayed this season. And he has been soundly outplayed 1 time.

Nice comparison between, a 100 Mil dollar player vs barely Mil Dollar player. That doesn't even compute.

Second, I can barely make sense of your argument? I mean who cares if he is the best player for now on this team? Did someone here say, they are certain that Romo or maybe Henson will be better option right now? Heck when Ben started for Pitt last year, were they thrilled to have him instead of a sucky QB they had starting at that time? Its like saying, I have to be happy with what I have since thats the best option among the worst options.

Then you should do the same with OL. You can't have it both ways. Bledsoe then has to work with what he has around him, and adjust his game. He doesn't do that currently and never has in his life and its not going to happen in future.

Its like hoping to win a Lottery without buying a ticket. When you say congrats about Tom Brady, its the same thing. They would have never known without Bledsoe getting hurt, nor would have they gotten lucky if Brady was never picked by them. That argument is silly, IMO.

 

[Alexander]

Tucker's penalties and their turnstyle blocking techniques have nothing to do with Bledsoe's struggles?

I don't think anyone has.

But the same issues are cropping up here that did in his previous stops.

Where is the one constant? It is taking snaps.

Of course he would be fine with protection. But what team can afford to not only assemble the Berlin Wall around him, but also be lucky enough that the line remains completely healthy?

He simply has too many handicaps to rely exclusively upon him.

 

[jazzcat22]

If NE would have lost those 3 SB's under Brady, what would people be saying. They should have put Drew back in, he was the starter?

Hindsight is the perfect vision, 20-20

 

[Zaxor]

Nice comparison between, a 100 Mil dollar player vs barely Mil Dollar player. That doesn't even compute.

Second, I can barely make sense of your argument? I mean who cares if he is the best player for now on this team? Did someone here say, they are certain that Romo or maybe Henson will be better option right now? Heck when Ben started for Pitt last year, were they thrilled to have him instead of a sucky QB they had starting at that time? Its like saying, I have to be happy with what I have since thats the best option among the worst options.

Then you should do the same with OL. You can't have it both ways. Bledsoe then has to work with what he has around him, and adjust his game. He doesn't do that currently and never has in his life and its not going to happen in future.

Its like hoping to win a Lottery without buying a ticket. When you say congrats about Tom Brady, its the same thing. They would have never known without Bledsoe getting hurt, nor would have they gotten lucky if Brady was never picked by them. That argument is silly, IMO.

and yet that arguement is exactly what those supporting Bledsoe keep giving...

and I am far too stupid to understand their logic behind it

 

[Zaxor]

If NE would have lost those 3 SB's under Brady, what would people be saying. They should have put Drew back in, he was the starter?

Hindsight is the perfect vision, 20-20

huh

 

[silver]

If it wasn't for Scott Norwood... Parcells would be 1-2 in Super Bowls.

and if it wasn't for jackie smith.....

 

[Hostile]

If NE would have lost those 3 SB's under Brady, what would people be saying. They should have put Drew back in, he was the starter?

Hindsight is the perfect vision, 20-20

If a frog's butt weren't so close to the ground he wouldn't bump it when he jumps.

 

[Kangaroo]

The humor in this take and the point being made originally is that folks are intelligent football minds yet ignore the painfully obvious.

Drew Bledsoe was asked to carry that Buffalo team with Travis Henry at RB.
Quincy Carter here and Kelly Holcomb there were asked to come along for the ride but not make mistakes. It isn't even close as to which guy NFL teams would prefer.

The arguments with Carter like the arguments now are about who is the best player for the job. Carter was the best QB on the roster here after his rookie season. Bledsoe is the best QB on the roster now by a mile. Both were imperfect and Carter clearly blew his roster spot but when and if a guy is on the roster they have to be judged according to that.

A Pats fan started this thread and yes we would all be quite glad to have Tom Brady. Congratz. You got lucky. Just blind luck tho was all it was. Brady was never drafted to be a competitor against Bledsoe for the job or pushed into a competition at all.

Drew Bledsoe has very seldomly been outplayed this season. And he has been soundly outplayed 1 time.

Yet Tom Brady won 2 Superbowls with Kevin Faulk and Antowain Smith as the RB oh yea that is such a stellar rb core. Hum that is the same RB core that Bledsoe had before Tom took over too humm so lets see the Travis Henry remark just plain incorrect

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't think anyone has.

But the same issues are cropping up here that did in his previous stops.

Where is the one constant? It is taking snaps.

Of course he would be fine with protection. But what team can afford to not only assemble the Berlin Wall around him, but also be lucky enough that the line remains completely healthy?

He simply has too many handicaps to rely exclusively upon him.

Most QB's are the same way. That's why Parcells has been adamant about building together a good team instead of relying on some unbelievable QB to make up for other deficiencies.

Y'know, it could just be that both Buffalo and Dallas just happened to have bad O-Lines when he played for them.

And the fact still remains, the O-Line was bad before he ever stepped foot in Big D. And despite that, he's still put up much better numbers than the past few QB's we've had here and still has compiled an 8-6 record despite being his first year with the team.

Rich.......

 

[RCowboyFan]

If NE would have lost those 3 SB's under Brady, what would people be saying. They should have put Drew back in, he was the starter?

Hindsight is the perfect vision, 20-20

Geez, thats the silliest argument I have seen on this issue. So, if Montana lost all his 4 SBs, would be deemed one of the Best QBs of all time? Or if Bradshaw lost all the SBs, would he be even in Pro-bowl?

I mean, where do people come up these arguments? :bang2:

I mean, if Lawrence Taylor didn't have all those sacks would be termed one of the Greatest LBs ever? How else would a player be called without doing something to be called great or good? Really, you could put that argument to any great player.

 

[Concord]

and if it wasn't for jackie smith.....

OUCH! That one's going to leave a mark!

 

[RCowboyFan]

If a frog's butt weren't so close to the ground he wouldn't bump it when he jumps.

:laugh1:

 

[DipChit]

.

A Pats fan started this thread and yes we would all be quite glad to have Tom Brady. Congratz. You got lucky. Just blind luck tho was all it was. Brady was never drafted to be a competitor against Bledsoe for the job or pushed into a competition at all.

It's actually kinda weird that we've went almost 2 years now having older immobile QB's with a pretty crappy line and neither one has really missed any playing time (save the half last Turkey day, but that hardly counts).

Had either of those guys missed 3 or 4 full games and Bill would've had to start Henson/Romo whether he wanted to or not.. who knows?

Obviously aint saying we got another Brady here, just noting circumstances.

 

[kojak]

I don't think anyone has.

But the same issues are cropping up here that did in his previous stops.

Where is the one constant? It is taking snaps.

Of course he would be fine with protection. But what team can afford to not only assemble the Berlin Wall around him, but also be lucky enough that the line remains completely healthy?

He simply has too many handicaps to rely exclusively upon him.

Then he should of never been brought in, if it's impossible to put elements around him to be sucessful. I guess that will be something to wait and see if Bill can figure out the puzzle.

So far 3 years, 3 diffrent QB's, all 3 diffrent styles of play, same O-line play. Doesn't seem to be working. So it's either bad luck, bad coaching, or both. Something gotta give because I am getting tired of hearing. We didn't block them good enough, we didn't execute very well today.....

 

[jazzcat22]

Geez, thats the silliest argument I have seen on this issue. So, if Montana lost all his 4 SBs, would be deemed one of the Best QBs of all time? Or if Bradshaw lost all the SBs, would he be even in Pro-bowl?

I mean, where do people come up these arguments? :bang2:

I mean, if Lawrence Taylor didn't have all those sacks would be termed one of the Greatest LBs ever? How else would a player be called without doing something to be called great or good? Really, you could put that argument to any great player.

It's not an arguement, just a statement. Not any worse than people on this board calling to replace Drew, Julius, Parcells, or whoever because we lose, then the next week when we win, their the greatest.

 

[RCowboyFan]

It's not an arguement, just a statement. Not any worse than people on this board calling to replace Drew, Julius, Parcells, or whoever because we lose, then the next week when we win, their the greatest.

Right, boy you sure know how to make a statement.

 

[jazzcat22]

right, whatever, then don't respond that way if you don't like it