Who is willing to accept 40 turnovers by the QB this year?

[Stautner]

I never said anything about the Worst of all time. You said that.

I have not seen any numbers that you have posted that deal with Turn Over Ratio. If you have posted them and I have missed them, please show me. Not INT Ratios because as we have already discussed, that is not the same as Turn Over ratio.

I will say it again. I am happy to discuss football with you or anybody. I am not interested in an adolescent discussion. Who knows, maybe tomorrow I will be more interested in that. I doubt it but maybe.

ONCE AGAIN - YOUR WORDS:

ABQCOWBOY
He is among the higest of any QB in the history of the game where TOs are concerned.

And ........

Bledsoe will probably retire as the most sacked, highest TO ratio QB ever, assuming he plays a few more years.


Are you going to claim that saying he is among the highest in history in terms of turnovers is not the same as been among the worst ever in those categories.

Seems to me there is a pattern here - you are still expecting people to believe whatever you say even without factual evidence to support it.

By the way, I did discuss fumbles - you did miss it.

Even so - YOU are the one who made the claim and YOU have the burden of proof where your own claims are concerned.

Can you back up anything you've said or not?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You mean the post where Plummer had a worse ratio than Bledsoe...? How's that equal the worst ever?

Well, if I recall, I said that he will probably end up being the most sacked and have the most TOs assuming he continues to play a few more years.

That's a bit different then what I am being credit for. However, it's fine. I'm getting used to this sort of thing when ever you discuss Bledsoe.

The most sacked QB in NFL history is John Elway with 516. Second is Dave Krieg at 494, then Randall Cunningham at 484. Currently, Drew Bledsoe has been sacked 461 times. He is already amoung the leaders. At the start of the season, Drew had been sacked 451 times over 13 complete seasons. That averages out to 34.69 sacks a season. At that rate, he will catch Cunningham this year. He already has been sacked 10 times this year in 4 games. He plays another couple of seasons and he will break the record. I guess I just don't see how this is such a big deal. What I said to begin with was a factual statement.

 

[peplaw06]

Well, if I recall, I said that he will probably end up being the most sacked and have the most TOs assuming he continues to play a few more years.

That's a bit different then what I am being credit for. However, it's fine. I'm getting used to this sort of thing when ever you discuss Bledsoe.

The most sacked QB in NFL history is John Elway with 516. Second is Dave Krieg at 494, then Randall Cunningham at 484. Currently, Drew Bledsoe has been sacked 461 times. He is already amoung the leaders. At the start of the season, Drew had been sacked 451 times over 13 complete seasons. That averages out to 34.69 sacks a season. At that rate, he will catch Cunningham this year. He already has been sacked 10 times this year in 4 games. He plays another couple of seasons and he will break the record. I guess I just don't see how this is such a big deal. What I said to begin with was a factual statement.

IMO sacks just aren't a QBs fault all too often. I think it's probably about 75% OL fault 25% QB fault (or thereabouts). Look at the guy ahead of Bledsoe. Cunningham was one of the fastest QBs to ever play the game. How do you fault him for taking 484 sacks? Elway was well known for moving outside the pocket and using his legs.

Plus you'd have to look at sacks per season, not just total sacks. Some QBs take more sacks that others but played fewer seasons. And Drew's played a long time.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ONCE AGAIN - YOUR WORDS:

ABQCOWBOY
He is among the higest of any QB in the history of the game where TOs are concerned.

And ........

Bledsoe will probably retire as the most sacked, highest TO ratio QB ever, assuming he plays a few more years.


Are you going to claim that saying he is among the highest in history in terms of turnovers is not the same as been among the worst ever in those categories.

Seems to me there is a pattern here - you are still expecting people to believe whatever you say even without factual evidence to support it.

By the way, I did discuss fumbles - you did miss it.

Even so - YOU are the one who made the claim and YOU have the burden of proof where your own claims are concerned.

Can you back up anything you've said or not?

Of course he is going to be amoung the worst in those catagories but that's not the same as saying he is among the worst. Bottom line, your hanging your hat on INT ratio and I have said over and over that you must include Lost Fumbles in order to get a real Turn Over ratio. All the rest is a bunch of crap.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

IMO sacks just aren't a QBs fault all too often. I think it's probably about 75% OL fault 25% QB fault (or thereabouts). Look at the guy ahead of Bledsoe. Cunningham was one of the fastest QBs to ever play the game. How do you fault him for taking 484 sacks? Elway was well known for moving outside the pocket and using his legs.

Plus you'd have to look at sacks per season, not just total sacks. Some QBs take more sacks that others but played fewer seasons. And Drew's played a long time.

I don't disagree with you but the fact remains that he has a very good chance of being the most sacked QB in the history of the game. How is what I said not true?

 

[peplaw06]

I don't disagree with you but the fact remains that he has a very good chance of being the most sacked QB in the history of the game. How is what I said not true?

So are you saying that Drew will have the worst TO:TD ratio and be he most sacked... or are you combining them? I don't see the correlation but whatever.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

By the way, I did discuss fumbles - you did miss it.

Yes, I must have missed that. Please post that and I will read what you have to say about it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So are you saying that Drew will have the worst TO:TD ratio and be he most sacked... or are you combining them? I don't see the correlation but whatever.

I'm saying that Drew Bledsoe will have a good chance of owning the record for most sacked QB in the history of the game.

I think George Blanda currently holds the record for most INTs 277. He also had 47 Fumbles. Thats a total of 324 over 26 Seasons or 12.46 a season. Fran Tarkenton had 266 INTs and 83 Fumbles over 18 seasons. His TO ratio, per season was 19.38.

Bledsoe is on pass to surpase these numbers.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Just looked in the paper this morning it who is at the bottom of the QB ratings, but our boy Drew. 63% Nicve start to the season!

So much for the great preseason.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

I'm saying that Drew Bledsoe will have a good chance of owning the record for most sacked QB in the history of the game.

I think George Blanda currently holds the record for most INTs 277. He also had 47 Fumbles. Thats a total of 324 over 26 Seasons or 12.46 a season. Fran Tarkenton had 266 INTs and 83 Fumbles over 18 seasons. His TO ratio, per season was 19.38.

Bledsoe is on pass to surpase these numbers.

That's what I'm saying.

Just so you understand, Blanda didn't QB full time for all 26 seasons so his per season numbers are slightly skewed.

It is difficult to look at anything per season though for a variety of reasons. First the 14 vs. 16 game schedule, then you have player's like Bledsoe who started right out of the gate vs. some who sat for few years. You'd also have to factor in players missing all or most of a season due to injury.

 

[Stautner]

Well, if I recall, I said that he will probably end up being the most sacked and have the most TOs assuming he continues to play a few more years.

That's a bit different then what I am being credit for. However, it's fine. I'm getting used to this sort of thing when ever you discuss Bledsoe.

The most sacked QB in NFL history is John Elway with 516. Second is Dave Krieg at 494, then Randall Cunningham at 484. Currently, Drew Bledsoe has been sacked 461 times. He is already amoung the leaders. At the start of the season, Drew had been sacked 451 times over 13 complete seasons. That averages out to 34.69 sacks a season. At that rate, he will catch Cunningham this year. He already has been sacked 10 times this year in 4 games. He plays another couple of seasons and he will break the record. I guess I just don't see how this is such a big deal. What I said to begin with was a factual statement.

Still peddling backwards as fast as you can ................

Nobody was arguing sacks - I never disputed your claims in that regard other than to say you had never offered any facts.

Turnovers was the point of contention.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just so you understand, Blanda didn't QB full time for all 26 seasons so his per season numbers are slightly skewed.

It is difficult to look at anything per season though for a variety of reasons. First the 14 vs. 16 game schedule, then you have player's like Bledsoe who started right out of the gate vs. some who sat for few years. You'd also have to factor in players missing all or most of a season due to injury.

Sure, I understand all these things which is why I only looked at players with Several Seasons under there belts. To me, this is why the TO vs TD ratio is important to the equation. If you started early in your career, the TD production should balance the TOs. If you were injured, again, it's going to balance the equation. In the case of Blanda, lets say he only played QB for 16 seasons and gave 10 seasons as kicker. His TO ratio is higher, 20.25 but still, it's in the ball park. The best way to really calculate this stat would be to figure how many actual offensive plays each player played and then do it that way. However, I don't have that kind of time or info available to me so I used seasons played which is the next best thing IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Still peddling backwards as fast as you can ................

Nobody was arguing sacks - I never disputed your claims in that regard other than to say you had never offered any facts.

Turnovers was the point of contention.

Morning Ernie. I think everybody has heard what you have to say. It holds as much water as it did the first time you said it.

You don't agree, that's fine. Doesn't mean there isn't a point to it all.

 

[Stautner]

Of course he is going to be amoung the worst in those catagories but that's not the same as saying he is among the worst. Bottom line, your hanging your hat on INT ratio and I have said over and over that you must include Lost Fumbles in order to get a real Turn Over ratio. All the rest is a bunch of crap.

Among the worst IN THOSE CATEGORIES is what we were discussing - you're trying to come up with another smoke screen.

OR did you think all this time we were talking about Bledsoe's field goal % .......?

I did discuss fumbles in the context of turnover ratio, although I didn't go into the same detail as with INT's for 2 reasons. The first is that fumbles is a SMALL portion of any QB's turnovers, and second, I don't have access to all info needed to calculate fumble ratio.

You see, I prefer facts rather than baseless statements.

I will say this, I figured in Bledsoe's 56 career lost fumbles as if they were INT's, and still came up to 1 turnover per every 25.6 passing attempts, which STILL puts him well into a comfortable range compared to the all team GREATS - even without factoring the fumbles of the other guys.

AND THAT 1/25.6 is a huge disservice to Bledsoe - his turnover ratio is actually much better for 2 reasons:

1. To calcuate fumble ratio you have to weigh fumbles against TOTAL TOUCHES (hand offs, sacks, rollouts AND passes) - not just passing attempts.

2. As I mentioned above, we haven't factored in the fumbles of other QB's - and I assume other QB's fumble at least once in a while.

Bottom Line is that even figuring a falsely low turnover ratio Bledsoe is still in a comfortable range with all time great interception ratio only (again, not even factoring in their fumbles) .........

obviously if we factored in the fumbles of the other QB's he would and correctly calculated fumble ratio he would be in even better shape. (I hate to be repetative, but it's a point I'm sure you will try to avoid somehow).

If you can guide me to a website that shows total QB touches and gives the fumble totals for inactive QB's I can factor in fumbles as well - but considering how obviously that would just further disprove your claims I doubt you will be overly concerned about helping in that regard.

 

[Stautner]

Morning Ernie. I think everybody has heard what you have to say. It holds as much water as it did the first time you said it.

You don't agree, that's fine. Doesn't mean there isn't a point to it all.

Your right - I GIVE UP - my constant proof about your false statements concerning Bledsoe's turnovers has nothing to do with his sack numbers .........

But then again, when did i ever say it did?

It can't be that you are trying to divert attention away from the actual topic of discussion could it?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Among the worst IN THOSE CATEGORIES is what we were discussing.

I did discuss fumbles, although I didn't go into the same detail as with INT's for 2 reasons. The first is that fumbles is a SMALL portion of any QB's turnovers, and second, I don't have access to all the info needed to calculate fumble ratio.

You see, I prefer to have facts rather than just make statements with no foundation.

I will say this, I did figure in Bledsoe's 56 career lost fumbles as if they were INT's, and that it still came up to 1 turnover per every 25.6 passing attempts, which STILL puts him well into a comfortable range compared to the all team GREATS.

AND THAT 1/25.6 is a huge disservice to Bledsoe - his turnover ratio is actually much better for 2 reasons:

1. To calcuate fumble ration accurately you have to weigh fumbles against TOTAL TOUCHES (hand offs, sacks, rollouts AND passes) - not just the times her threw the ball.

2. We haven't factored in the fumbles of all other QB's.


Bottom Line is that even figuring a falsely low turnover ratio Bledsoe is still in a comfortable range with all time great interception ratio only (not even factoring in their fumbles) .........

obviously if we factored in the fumbles of the other QB's he would and correctly calculated fumble ratio he would be in even better shape.

If you can guide me to a website that shows total QB touches and gives the fumble totals for inactive QB's I can factor in fumbles as well - but considering how obviously that would just further disprove your claims I doubt you will be overly concerned about helping in that regard.

I calculated in the fumbles of other QBs. Bledsoe's ratio is very high for his career and going up. I didn't use pass attempts because that tells half the story. If you read my reply to Stan, you will see that I've already acknowledge that the best way to do this was to take all offensive plays any given QB has played in a career and use that as the dinominator. However, I don't have that info so again, I used seasons played. In reality, I explained all of this very early on in my posts. I encourage you to factor in the fumbles. I think you'll find that it doesn't help Bledsoe at all. How could it. I'm fine with comparing him to all others but again, I'm not using pass attempts as the standard. I've repeatedly said this.


Do the calculation and see where he's at. I asked you to do this earlier and you said I was full of crap. Fine, that's why I asked you to do it. See for yourself.

It's really a production comparison I'm trying to reach. You continue to accuse of back peddling and all this sort of stuff but in the end, the numbers are still telling a story. Say what you want about me but do that comparisons. Compare total number of Turn Overs against total number of TDs. See what the plus minus looks like.

 

[Stautner]

Morning Ernie. I think everybody has heard what you have to say. It holds as much water as it did the first time you said it.

You don't agree, that's fine. Doesn't mean there isn't a point to it all.

By the way - if you are going to go by what "everybody" has heard, you lose there too - the support does not go your way anymore than the numbers or the logic do.

If you had merely said something fair and reasonable like Bledsoe turns the ball over a little more than he should or we would like there would have been no problem - he does.

If you had been reasonable enough to accept that his turnover rate over the first 4 games of this season is well above his norm we would have been fine.

But you blasted out a bold statement that you couldn't back up - you have to expect opposition.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your right - I GIVE UP - my constant proof about your false statements concerning Bledsoe's turnovers has nothing to do with his sack numbers .........

But then again, when did i ever say it did?

It can't be that you are trying to divert attention away from the actual topic of discussion could it?

This is a discussion board Ernie. Often, you will find that the discussion turns one way or another. It may start with a central theme and expand into other areas. This is what is happening in this discussion. It's not uncommen.

The sacks have nothing to do with the other. I simply made the statement. Review the post. You will find that I never linked one to the other. Only said he may end up owning the record. I believe he will if he continues to play.

Since you are screaming as loud as you can about me making false statements, what exactly is it about Bledsoe's turn overs that are false? His He may not ever catch Blanda but then again, he is never going to play for the lenght of time Blanda did either. Doesn't really matter. The key, to me, is the +/- ratio. To me, that tells the story of QBs. Did they produce more positive (TDs) then negative (TOs)?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

By the way - if you are going to go by waht "everybody" has heard, you lose there too - the support does not go your way anymore than the numbers or the logic do.

Sounds as if your trying to convince yourself of something. As I said earlier, everybody has heard what you have to say. Anybody can compare the QBs if they wish to. I'm not all that worried about what will be found. Would actually be a positive thing IMO.

 

[Stautner]

This is a discussion board Ernie. Often, you will find that the discussion turns one way or another. It may start with a central theme and expand into other areas. This is what is happening in this discussion. It's not uncommen.

The sacks have nothing to do with the other. I simply made the statement. Review the post. You will find that I never linked one to the other. Only said he may end up owning the record. I believe he will if he continues to play.

Since you are screaming as loud as you can about me making false statements, what exactly is it about Bledsoe's turn overs that are false? His He may not ever catch Blanda but then again, he is never going to play for the lenght of time Blanda did either. Doesn't really matter. The key, to me, is the +/- ratio. To me, that tells the story of QBs. Did they produce more positive (TDs) then negative (TOs)?

More smoke screen.

Discussions do turn, but that's not what was happening.

You were trying to dispute what I and others had been saying ........

and you did it by pointing to a fragment of your comments about sacks which was irrelevent to the discussion ......

you tried to prove that you didn't make ANY false statements by pointing to the fragment of your comments that was never in dispute to begin with.