Pro Bledsoe Today? When is Tomorrow?

[Cochese]

Not exactly... most posters would have you believe that Bledsoe doesn't hold a candle to some of the all time great QBs. Stats tell a different story and the post I quoted did nothing to prove otherwise.

Does that make Vinny T and Dave Kreig all time greats too? Hey, the numbers dont lie.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Does that make Vinny T and Dave Kreig all time greats too? Hey, the numbers dont lie.

I guess you're in a sarastic mood tonight

 

[Alexander]

To those who believe that Bledsoe gives us our best opportunity to win now I ask you when would you look in another direction, Romo or otherwise?

The youth on this teams defense and many offensive spots (excluding TO, Glenn, Rivera and maybe Flozell) gives us hope of being competitive for the foreseeable future. When would you be willing to suffer the growing pains of a young QB. As I understand it, that is the primary reason some wish to not play Romo now. Romo is in his 4th year so he's probably not gonna get significantly better by continuing to watch and many folks discount preseason as experience of significant value.

Where does this cycle end?

btw - I'm not adamant about playing Romo now. But I'd sure be willing to entertain it.

It all depends on what the plan is for Coach Parcells.

If he intends to make this his last hurrah, we probably keep Bledsoe around until the end because he "gives us the best chance to win".

But if not, and he knows it, he could have a serious decision to make if Bledsoe pulls more games like he did against the Eagles. He might consult with his friend Tom Coughlin about taking your lumps. The Giants were very much in the thick of the NFC East race in 2004 when Kurt Warner was benched in favor of Eli Manning.

It's not an easy decision. Not in the least.

 

[peplaw06]

Does that make Vinny T and Dave Kreig all time greats too? Hey, the numbers dont lie.

That argument could definitely be made... IMO anyone who can stick around for 19 seasons is a great QB.

That said you have to take into account the inflated stats (for pure numbers... yards, TDs, etc.) for those extra 7 years those guys have over Aikman, Bledsoe, and other QBs with average career lengths.

 

[sonnyboy]

In all this ROMO/BLEDSOE debate I've yet to see one Bledsoe backer explain to me Bledsoe's performance this year.

Here's what I want. Tell me why he is so much weaker after 5 weeks this year then last year. The level of competition is similar. The talent around him better. He had no running game last year through week 5, no he has one of the best. Why has his QB rating dropped 30 points.

Tell me how this level of performance is good enough to lead us to the post season or why it's gonna get better!

 

[Bleu Star]

In all this ROMO/BLEDSOE debate I've yet to see one Bledsoe backer explain to me Bledsoe's performance this year.

Here's what I want. Tell me why he is so much weaker after 5 weeks this year then last year. The level of competition is similar. The talent around him better. He had no running game last year through week 5, no he has one of the best. Why has his QB rating dropped 30 points.

Tell me how this level of performance is good enough to lead us to the post season or why it's gonna get better!

You won't get a straight answer to that.

 

[Crown Royal]

That argument could definitely be made... IMO anyone who can stick around for 19 seasons is a great QB.

That said you have to take into account the inflated stats (for pure numbers... yards, TDs, etc.) for those extra 7 years those guys have over Aikman, Bledsoe, and other QBs with average career lengths.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Bledsoe looks very nice statistically. But I think most fans agree that even Aikman's greatness isn't in his stats, but in his efficiency.

Bledsoe has good career numbers, and don't get me wrong, he has a good career. When he retires, even though I want to see him benched, I will remember him as a pretty good QB who could get you a good number of wins. But I won't remember him a championship QB, or a QB of good teams. I will see him as a statistical machine who could beat up on above average teams, but could also be defensed.

Heck, Testaverde had a decent career - that doesn't mean he did squat in Dallas.

 

[peplaw06]

In all this ROMO/BLEDSOE debate I've yet to see one Bledsoe backer explain to me Bledsoe's performance this year.

Here's what I want. Tell me why he is so much weaker after 5 weeks this year then last year. The level of competition is similar. The talent around him better. He had no running game last year through week 5, no he has one of the best. Why has his QB rating dropped 30 points.

Tell me how this level of performance is good enough to lead us to the post season or why it's gonna get better!

Dropped 30 points in QB rating from last year? You mean when he was rated at 100??

If you expected Bledsoe to maintain a 100 QB rating, you were kidding yourself. No one expected that. So for Bledsoe's career rating, he's 7 points off that pace. That's with a small sample size and two horrible games.

Look, you're not going to find a rational denial that Bledsoe played two bad games. It screams homer/agenda/blindness to deny that was the case. But two bad games does not necessarily dictate a season.

IMO it's just as ridiculous to think that Bledsoe is going to stay at 100 QB rating, or that the two bad games we've seen from him this seaosn is what we're going to get all year, as it is to deny that Bledsoe had two bad games. You won't get that argument from me.

But as far as complaining that Bledsoe isn't rated at 100, you have to recognize that you're not going to get that from him. It's little concepts called averages and statistical anomalies.

 

[gbrittain]

Troy Kenneth Aikman career QB rating... 81.6

Aikman 4 out of 12 sub 80 rating

Troy did it twice.

Aikman was 99 in 1993, 93.6 in 1995.

Aikman roughly 107-85... .557

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the talent around him.

Aikman's pass attempts per interception... Regular season 33.4, playoffs 29.5. Bledsoe in the regular season - 32.6, playoffs - 21.

For what he is? Statistically he has HOF type numbers. Which is what you brought to the argument... stats. These numbers were compared with a first ballot hall of famer who won 3 super bowls. And IMO he's not all that far off. Definitely not far enough for you to say he's not a "quality" NFL QB.

Wow, you just showed me on that post.

Sorry, but Drew Bledsoe is not considered an all time great QB. He is not. As a matter of fact John McClain a HOF voter came out right around HOF induction time on Dallas radio and said no way he votes Drew Bledsoe in the HOF.

I am not going to say that John McClain is the sole authority, but I think that the fact that he came out so publicly without hesitation in saying that points to the overall lack of respect Drew Bledsoe commands around the league.

You could formulate a poll scientific or not, to name the top 10 QBs of today and there is no way he even gets mentioned. Unless they are die hard Cowboy fans of course.

No one considers him to be an all time great or a current great. If you talk about the 90s you will hear names such as Brett Favre, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, and John Elway.

Of course during the 2000s it is Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Donovan McNabb plus there are a few youngsters making some waves.

Bottom line, contratulation to Drew Bledsoe in that he has been good enough to play in his 14th season now. He is not one of the best now and he was not one of the best back in the day.

 

[gbrittain]

Oh, don't get me wrong, Bledsoe looks very nice statistically. But I think most fans agree that even Aikman's greatness isn't in his stats, but in his efficiency.

Bledsoe has good career numbers, and don't get me wrong, he has a good career. When he retires, even though I want to see him benched, I will remember him as a pretty good QB who could get you a good number of wins. But I won't remember him a championship QB, or a QB of good teams. I will see him as a statistical machine who could beat up on above average teams, but could also be defensed.

Heck, Testaverde had a decent career - that doesn't mean he did squat in Dallas.

That is what the Drew die hards refuse to understand.

 

[peplaw06]

Oh, don't get me wrong, Bledsoe looks very nice statistically. But I think most fans agree that even Aikman's greatness isn't in his stats, but in his efficiency.

You're right... even the greatest of QBs statistically have their drawbacks... Marino never got a ring for instance. It's a balancing act... you have to consider more than just stats and more than just wins. It's just not as cut and dried as some would have you believe.

Bledsoe has good career numbers, and don't get me wrong, he has a good career. When he retires, even though I want to see him benched, I will remember him as a pretty good QB who could get you a good number of wins. But I won't remember him a championship QB, or a QB of good teams. I will see him as a statistical machine who could beat up on above average teams, but could also be defensed.

Again, no argument... I'd simply point out that most QBs are that way. A QB is only one part of the equation in regards to a team's performance. Even the best winning percentage QBs win about 60% of their games. QBs are going to have a harder time winning against better teams, it's all circular. ALL QBs could be defensed and all QBs struggle against better teams.

 

[peplaw06]

Wow, you just showed me on that post.

Sorry, but Drew Bledsoe is not considered an all time great QB. He is not. As a matter of fact John McClain a HOF voter came out right around HOF induction time on Dallas radio and said no way he votes Drew Bledsoe in the HOF.

I am not going to say that John McClain is the sole authority, but I think that the fact that he came out so publicly without hesitation in saying that points to the overall lack of respect Drew Bledsoe commands around the league.

You could formulate a poll scientific or not, to name the top 10 QBs of today and there is no way he even gets mentioned. Unless they are die hard Cowboy fans of course.

No one considers him to be an all time great or a current great. If you talk about the 90s you will hear names such as Brett Favre, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, and John Elway.

Of course during the 2000s it is Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Donovan McNabb plus there are a few youngsters making some waves.

Bottom line, contratulation to Drew Bledsoe in that he has been good enough to play in his 14th season now. He is not one of the best now and he was not one of the best back in the day.

Sorry but that's all opinion, and I disagree. And you'll find HOF voters who disagree and fans who disagree. It's all debatable. If you pin me down to a top 10 QBs of the 90s, I bet Bledsoe would be somewhere on my list.

 

[Bizwah]

Dropped 30 points in QB rating from last year? You mean when he was rated at 100??

If you expected Bledsoe to maintain a 100 QB rating, you were kidding yourself. No one expected that. So for Bledsoe's career rating, he's 7 points off that pace. That's with a small sample size and two horrible games.

Look, you're not going to find a rational denial that Bledsoe played two bad games. It screams homer/agenda/blindness to deny that was the case. But two bad games does not necessarily dictate a season.

IMO it's just as ridiculous to think that Bledsoe is going to stay at 100 QB rating, or that the two bad games we've seen from him this seaosn is what we're going to get all year, as it is to deny that Bledsoe had two bad games. You won't get that argument from me.

But as far as complaining that Bledsoe isn't rated at 100, you have to recognize that you're not going to get that from him. It's little concepts called averages and statistical anomalies.

Nice posts.

I think you're really seeing things rationally. There's nothing like who's playing QB of the Dallas Cowboys to get someone's blood boiling.

Most of our venom to Bledsoe is rooted in the fact that we've been so darn spoiled when it comes to QB.

We had Merideth followed by Morton and Staubach. Staubach was followed by Danny White.....and really, White was a good QB. The team was deteriorating around him (especially the OL), but he still put up good numbers. Sheesh! We'd win the Super Bowl this year if we had a young Danny White. Anyway, we only had to wait three years from White to get to Aikman.

So far, we've waited seven lonnnnngggg seasons waiting for a new franchise QB to come along. We're impatient....Any young QB COULD be the guy. That's why we're so short.

Anyway, I think we'll go with Bledsoe. Experience goes a long way in the NFL, and I remember how good young guys like Carter, Hutchinson, and Henson looked at times.

 

[SuspectCorner]

the thing about bledsoe, and i hate to see this, is he appears to be aging rapidly. he is NOT the same rocket-launcher i saw even a year ago. he is steadily sliding into the abyss whereby his experience and toughness is eclipsed by his limits of mobility and especially his mental processes. the cat has def lost confidence in his game.

he's hearing "the footsteps" - and he ain't sure who's closing faster... blitzers, romo, or Father Time himself.

 

[peplaw06]

Nice posts.

I think you're really seeing things rationally. There's nothing like who's playing QB of the Dallas Cowboys to get someone's blood boiling.

Most of our venom to Bledsoe is rooted in the fact that we've been so darn spoiled when it comes to QB.

We had Merideth followed by Morton and Staubach. Staubach was followed by Danny White.....and really, White was a good QB. The team was deteriorating around him (especially the OL), but he still put up good numbers. Sheesh! We'd win the Super Bowl this year if we had a young Danny White. Anyway, we only had to wait three years from White to get to Aikman.

So far, we've waited seven lonnnnngggg seasons waiting for a new franchise QB to come along. We're impatient....Any young QB COULD be the guy. That's why we're so short.

Anyway, I think we'll go with Bledsoe. Experience goes a long way in the NFL, and I remember how good young guys like Carter, Hutchinson, and Henson looked at times.

Thanks... and I completely agree. It's tough to see your QB struggle, especially when there's a semi-highly touted youngster champing at the bit to get in the game. Emotions run high, because we all want to win, and though we may disagree on the means to that end, we all have the team's best interests at heart.

I have no animosity towards those who voice their opinions rationally, even though they may be in conflict with mine. I try to look at both sides of the argument and give a fair shot to good points. Where I get annoyed is when people don't take the time to weigh the arguments, yet make remarks discounting other points of view. As long as you remain rational and can convey your point of view, I will try to respect that.

No matter how wrong you may be

 

[peplaw06]

the thing about bledsoe, and i hate to see this, is he appears to be aging rapidly. he is NOT the same rocket-launcher i saw even a year ago. he is steadily sliding into the abyss whereby his experience and toughness is eclipsed by his limits of mobility and especially his mental processes. the cat has def lost confidence in his game.

he's hearing "the footsteps" - and he ain't sure who's closing faster... blitzers, romo, or Father Time himself.

I think most can agree that Bledsoe has reached the pinnacle of his abilities, and is on the downside of his career. I guess it boils down to whether you think that what he has is enough to get us to where we want to go... i.e. is he deteriorating so rapidly as to lead you to believe he can't make it through the season, or do you think he has just enough for 1 maybe 2 years?

 

[sonnyboy]

Dropped 30 points in QB rating from last year? You mean when he was rated at 100??

If you expected Bledsoe to maintain a 100 QB rating, you were kidding yourself. No one expected that. So for Bledsoe's career rating, he's 7 points off that pace. That's with a small sample size and two horrible games.

Look, you're not going to find a rational denial that Bledsoe played two bad games. It screams homer/agenda/blindness to deny that was the case. But two bad games does not necessarily dictate a season.

IMO it's just as ridiculous to think that Bledsoe is going to stay at 100 QB rating, or that the two bad games we've seen from him this seaosn is what we're going to get all year, as it is to deny that Bledsoe had two bad games. You won't get that argument from me.

But as far as complaining that Bledsoe isn't rated at 100, you have to recognize that you're not going to get that from him. It's little concepts called averages and statistical anomalies.

Not to sound like a jerk, but when did I say he need to maintain a 100 QB rating. I used last years start to make a point.

Here's the point: He is nowhere near as good as he was last year.

I listen to all the Bledsoe bashing last preseason, but went into the season with an open mind willing to give him a chance.

I was pleasantly surprised with his performance. We won because of him. After Flozel went down in week five, we all know what happened.
He still had his moments and played well in many games the rest of the season.

Five games of slighty below average to poor play is enough, he has clearly demonstrated that he can no longer play to the standard we require to claim a championship.

 

[SuspectCorner]

I think most can agree that Bledsoe has reached the pinnacle of his abilities, and is on the downside of his career. I guess it boils down to whether you think that what he has is enough to get us to where we want to go... i.e. is he deteriorating so rapidly as to lead you to believe he can't make it through the season, or do you think he has just enough for 1 maybe 2 years?

my biggest fear is he is deteriorating to the point he can no longer supply the occasionally spectacular downfield play we got from him last season - yet he will bail himself out with enough dinks and dunks to keep himself on the field.

i don't know what affects parcells judgement - but, for me, the whole point to the mobility sacrifice with bledsoe was the "shock-and-awe effect" of his deep strikes to WRs.

i'm seeing more of the former this season... and very little of the latter.

 

[Crown Royal]

You're right... even the greatest of QBs statistically have their drawbacks... Marino never got a ring for instance. It's a balancing act... you have to consider more than just stats and more than just wins. It's just not as cut and dried as some would have you believe.

Again, no argument... I'd simply point out that most QBs are that way. A QB is only one part of the equation in regards to a team's performance. Even the best winning percentage QBs win about 60% of their games. QBs are going to have a harder time winning against better teams, it's all circular. ALL QBs could be defensed and all QBs struggle against better teams.

I really don't disagree with any of this. All QBs struggle against good competition at some point. My problem and issue is that I can't think of any games this year where he has looked good against good competition this year, and last year, he only really looked good against good competition twice - San Diego and Kansas City. That isn't going to cut it with this team. QBs are worse against good competition, but that doesn't mean that good QBs don't have good games against that competition. Bledsoe hasn't played more than an above average game this year, and only had 2 games last year where he played well against stiff competition.

I take all of that information, combine the dreadful games of this year, and see a QB rapidly declining. I can't see how he is going to pull out of this and start playing good. If we want to win a Super Bowl, we need a QB who can play well against stiff competition. Evidence is starting to show that Drew Bledsoe is NOT that QB.