***The Bledsoe will determine the outcome of the game thread***

[Stautner]

There's a problem of the rest of the team giving the Eagles 28 points that forced us to be throwing with 20 seconds to go on the 5 to go to overtime.

I don't see all that many Bench Watkins and Bench McBriar threads, though. Which is weird.

If a pattern develops with Watkins and McBriar then we will all be screaming to bench them, but it hasn't.

Bledsoe has shown a pattern of holding the ball too long, being slow to make decisions and playing poorly when pressured ......

There is a pretty clear difference.

 

[Doomsday101]

There's a problem of the rest of the team giving the Eagles 28 points that forced us to be throwing with 20 seconds to go on the 5 to go to overtime.

I don't see all that many Bench Watkins and Bench McBriar threads, though. Which is weird.

Noticed that as well. Bledsoe clearly made mistakes on his own and some that were created by the lack of picking up the blitz by others. All teams try to put pressure on the opposing QB for the same reason and that is to create mistakes. I'm not giving Bledsoe a pass on his mistakes but others share in these mistakes as well.

 

[peplaw06]

Werder (why am I even relating this said Parcells feels he has 'a Drew Brees type QB' in Romo, and won't hesitate to insert him if Drew fails this two week test.

This is exactly the type of BS reporting I expect from PFT and Florio.

Geez... what did Werder actually say here??

BP "won't hesitate" to put Romo in if Drew fails the next two weeks...

If you know BP at all, you'd say he will at the very least hesitate whenever he makes that move. He's not going to do it on a whim.

And if Bledsoe plays bad and BP does hesitate, or doesn't do it at all, then Werder has a built in CYA statement in saying "If Drew fails..."

So if/when it doesn't happen, Werder can say, "well I guess BP doesn't feel Drew's 'failed.'"

There's no substance to this report at all. Shocking I know.

 

[Bach]

No, he wasn't. That's a bizarre take. He threw 3 int's. How can you say he was really good?

Craziness.....

And you can lay a lot of the blame at his feet. Three INT's giving Philly easy scores and taking away a potential tying TD at the end, plus his awful underthrow to a wideopen TO in the fourth and so on.

He didn't singlehandedly lose that one, but he sure did his best to lose it.

 

[dmq]

My friend at work that is a Giant fan is terrified that they will knock Bledsoe out of the game and Romo will lead us to victory.

 

[Doomsday101]

My friend at work that is a Giant fan is terrified that they will knock Bledsoe out of the game and Romo will lead us to victory.

Tell him not to worry Drew will just go out and have a big game of his own to help take the giants down tonight.

 

[superpunk]

If a pattern develops with Watkins and McBriar then we will all be screaming to bench them, but it hasn't.

Bledsoe has shown a pattern of holding the ball too long, being slow to make decisions and playing poorly when pressured ......

There is a pretty clear difference.

I've noticed that Bledsoe also can kick some tail when given adequate protection. And that no QB plays well when pressured.

 

[Stautner]

This is exactly the type of BS reporting I expect from PFT and Florio.

Geez... what did Werder actually say here??

BP "won't hesitate" to put Romo in if Drew fails the next two weeks...

If you know BP at all, you'd say he will at the very least hesitate whenever he makes that move. He's not going to do it on a whim.

And if Bledsoe plays bad and BP does hesitate, or doesn't do it at all, then Werder has a built in CYA statement in saying "If Drew fails..."

So if/when it doesn't happen, Werder can say, "well I guess BP doesn't feel Drew's 'failed.'"

There's no substance to this report at all. Shocking I know.

If Drew "fails" the next two weeks then I hardly think replacing him would qualify as a "whim". 4 poor showings and 3 good ones wouldn't exactly mean replacing Bledsoe would be a knee jerk reaction - especially considering the pattern of Bledsoe only playing well against weak teams.

 

[Doomsday101]

I've noticed that Bledsoe also can kick some tail when given adequate protection. And that no QB plays well when pressured.

I noticed that as well during several games yesterday. The more pressure a defense placed on the QB the more mistakes they tended to make. Amazing!!!

 

[superpunk]

And you can lay a lot of the blame at his feet. Three INT's giving Philly easy scores and taking away a potential tying TD at the end, plus his awful underthrow to a wideopen TO in the fourth and so on.

He didn't singlehandedly lose that one, but he sure did his best to lose it.

Until the last second INT (which he should not have had to throw), his turnovers led to a grand total of 3 points for Philly. I know, I know, FGs are devastating.

 

[peplaw06]

If Drew "fails" the next two weeks then I hardly think replacing him would qualify as a "whim". 4 poor showings and 3 good ones wouldn't exactly mean replacing Bledsoe would be a knee jerk reaction - especially considering the pattern of Bledsoe only playing well against weak teams.

So then by taking issue with that, then that would mean necessarily that BP has in fact hesitated? Thanks for proving my point.

 

[superpunk]

I noticed that as well during several games yesterday. The more pressure a defense placed on the QB the more mistakes they tended to make. Amazing!!!

I hate that Bledsoe plays worse under pressure, just like every QB in the history of the universe. I expected more from him.

 

[Stautner]

So then by taking issue with that, then that would mean necessarily that BP has in fact hesitated? Thanks for proving my point.

Huh? Explain your logic.

I don't get your point to begin with, but whether or not Parcells has hesitated up till now has nothing to do with whether or not he will hesitate after the next 2 games if Bledsoe plays poorly.

Besides, I didn't even comment on whether Parcells would hesitate, my comment was solely about a decision to replace Bledsoe not being a "whim" if he plays poorly the next two weeks.

 

[peplaw06]

Huh? Explain your logic.

I don't get your point to begin with, but whether or not Parcells has hesitated up till now has nothing to do with whether or not he will hesitate after the next 2 games if Bledsoe plays poorly.

Besides, I didn't even comment on whether Parcells would hesitate, my comment was solely about a decision to replace Bledsoe not being a "whim" if he plays poorly the next two weeks.

I don't know why I'm surprised, but in typical Stautner fashion you have managed to pick out one sentence in a post of mine and take issue with it, and divert attention from the theme of the post.

For Werder to say BP "won't hesitate" leads the reader to make an inference that BP has 1) already decided to make the move, or 2) that BP won't give adequate consideration to whether or not he should make the move.

My point had nothing to do with BP's thought processes though, it had to do with Werder's report having no substance. It's an amibguous statement made to create an appearance of a QB controversy.

 

[theogt]

There's a problem of the rest of the team giving the Eagles 28 points that forced us to be throwing with 20 seconds to go on the 5 to go to overtime.

I don't see all that many Bench Watkins and Bench McBriar threads, though. Which is weird.

Watkins is expected to make rookie mistakes (though his TD give up was more a problem with the play call). Bledsoe isn't.

 

[superpunk]

Watkins is expected to make rookie mistakes (though his TD give up was more a problem with the play call). Bledsoe isn't.

Sorry. I can't rationalize 21 points as rookie mistakes. And when talking about who the biggest scapegoat for that game is, since everyone wants to assign the blame, Watkins is the big dog. I'm not rationalizing Bledsoe's mistakes, they are inexcusable, and if Romo gets the call, I'll be thrilled. But you can't pin Philly on him.

 

[theogt]

I hate that Bledsoe plays worse under pressure, just like every QB in the history of the universe. I expected more from him.

Two problems here. You could make the argument that Bledsoe plays worse than other QBs under pressure and that Bledsoe allows pressure to develop where other QBs wouldn't.

 

[Doomsday101]

Two problems here. You could make the argument that Bledsoe plays worse than other QBs under pressure and that Bledsoe allows pressure to develop where other QBs wouldn't.

or you could say when a guys are coming scott free that most QB's are going down or will make mistakes and that includes vets which is why every team in the NFL trys to put a lot of pressure on the QB not just ours. Bledsoe shares in the blame but it is not his alone.

 

[zrinkill]

I think Bledsoe will get hurt in the first half of this game ..... and Romo will win the game hooking up with T.O.

Then the real QB controversy will start.

 

[Stautner]

I don't know why I'm surprised, but in typical Stautner fashion you have managed to pick out one sentence in a post of mine and take issue with it, and divert attention from the theme of the post.

For Werder to say BP "won't hesitate" leads the reader to make an inference that BP has 1) already decided to make the move, or 2) that BP won't give adequate consideration to whether or not he should make the move.

My point had nothing to do with BP's thought processes though, it had to do with Werder's report having no substance. It's an amibguous statement made to create an appearance of a QB controversy.

This is baloney. You have left out a third, and more obvious option, which is that Parcells may already be thinking about scenarios involving his QB's, and that a "lack of hesitation" may be the result of having contemplated matters in advance.

You are equating "not hesitating to make a move" with "spur of the moment decision" or "knee jerk reaction", and that's just not accurate.

It's very reasonable to expect that Parcells has given this issue some thought, that he will give it more thought if Bledsoe plays poorly tonight, and that he may have a clear head on what his reaction would be to another poor performance next week.

By the way, I did pick out just a portion of your post - the reason being that was the portion I had an issue with. You were the one who chose to argue about my point by discussing a separate issue.