View Full Version : This ones for you Wys!
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 04:29 PM
Here are some stats for you wys. You always seem to like to take team's td/int ratio vs above .500 teams and .500 and below so i broke down the top qbs for ya! If there are any mistakes my apoligies. I just thought since you base Bledsoe's performance vs winning/losing teams i thought i'd give couple other QB's people who read your posts can compare him to.
TD/INT ratio vs .500+ teams
Gannon...................11-3
Collins......................8-5
Farve.......................11-7
Brady.......................11-9
Manning..................12-11
Bledsoe...................12-14
McNair.....................13-16
Wys's favorite, TD/INT ratio w/out the QB's best game! :D
Gannon.....................7-3
Farve.........................8-7
Brady........................8-9
Manning....................9-11
Collins.......................4-5
Bledsoe.....................9-14
McNair.......................10-16
TD/INT ratio vs .500 and below teams
Bledsoe.....................12-1
Brady........................17-5
Manning....................14-5
Gannon.....................14-6
Farve........................16-9
Collins........................11-9
McNair........................11-9
Schobel94
05-31-2003, 07:10 PM
hmmm.... lol he seems very efficient vs poor teams, just needs to to better vs. the tough ones.
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 07:29 PM
even against the tough ones he's not nearly as bad as some thinks. He managed to put up 12 tds which is second most of those QB's mentioned. So it isn't that Drew is completely ineffective vs good teams, he just needs to cut down on the INTS by half.
What amazed me was how some of these top qb's struggle against below par competition.
at least we know we can count on Drew to beat the teams he's supposed to beat. He just can't carry the load on the tougher teams.
what else the stats show is none of the QB's play all that great vs good teams, which is only logical. Only Gannon really stands out to be superior but we all saw what happened to him in the Super Bowl.
Originally posted by Kicker22705
Here are some stats for you wys. You always seem to like to take team's td/int ratio vs above .500 teams and .500 and below so i broke down the top qbs for ya! If there are any mistakes my apoligies. I just thought since you base Bledsoe's performance vs winning/losing teams i thought i'd give couple other QB's people who read your posts can compare him to.
TD/INT ratio vs .500+ teams
Gannon...................11-3
Collins......................8-5
Farve.......................11-7
Brady.......................11-9
Manning..................12-11
Bledsoe...................12-14
McNair.....................13-16
Wys's favorite, TD/INT ratio w/out the QB's best game! :D
Gannon.....................7-3
Farve.........................8-7
Brady........................8-9
Manning....................9-11
Collins.......................4-5
Bledsoe.....................9-14
McNair.......................10-16
TD/INT ratio vs .500 and below teams
Bledsoe.....................12-1
Brady........................17-5
Manning....................14-5
Gannon.....................14-6
Farve........................16-9
Collins........................11-9
McNair........................11-9
Interesting kicker! Although I do believe that it should be 13-15 for that first group and only 11-1 for the last. :D
It is interesting to note. But what catches my eye is that QBs like McNair, Brady, Favre, and Collins had nowhere near the likes of Moulds, Price, Reed, JR, w/ as solid an OL as we had, or a caliber RB like Henry. As well, I cannot imagine that their OLs were healthy all season as well. I know McNair's wasn't.
Also, how does everyone's record stack up against those teams? i.e., teams w/ those win pctgs.?
P.S. Kicker, don't forget to add in the Fumbles too of which Drew had three of, two pivotal.
Also, curious, what were the others TD/INT ratios in their division?
Vs. playoff teams?
In their divisions:
Bledsoe: 8 TDs/9 INTs; 5 TDs/9 INTs/10 TOs best game removed
Favre: 14/6; 11/6 best game removed
Collins: 7/4; 5/4 best game removed (and he had only 1 game w/ more INTs than TDs, 1/2 v. Wash. which NY won)
Gannon: 9/2; 6/2 BGR
Brady: 11/5; 8/5 BGR
McNair: 6/2; 5/2 BGR
Manning: 10/4; 7/4 BGR
Bledsoe 9, Avg. of others 3.8 INTs;
Vs. Playoff Teams:
Bledsoe: 3 TDs/9 INTs/12 TOs; 3 TDs/6 INTs/9 TOs best game removed
Favre: 5/5; 3/5 BGR
Collins: 8/5; 4/5 BGR
Gannon: 7/2; 3/2 BGR
Brady: 7/6; 4/6 BGR
McNair: 13/5; 10/5 BGR
Manning: 12/12; 9/12 BGR
Bledsoe 9, Avg. of others 5.8 INTs; 3.8 w/o Manning! And Drew only played 4 PO teams, some of the others more! Which means their averages were far lower than Drew's.
Is the picture starting to clear up a bit?
I'm not sure what angle you were taking originally. It almost seemed as if you were supporting my viewpoints since Drew did less w/ more around him. But I wasn't sure.
But this is the type of stuff I'm talking about. And in both categories, not one of those QBs had more INTs than TDs!!!
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 09:14 PM
Division TD/INT Ratio
Gannon....................9-2
McNair......................6-2
Manning..................10-4
Farve.......................14-6
Brady.......................11-5
Collins......................7-4
Bledsoe....................8-9
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 09:16 PM
oh, beat me to it!
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 09:25 PM
It can be argued wheather or not Bledsoe had weapons coming into the season. After all, the weapons he had around him this season didn't evolve into those prolific weapons we know themn as today, until Bledsoe came to Buffalo.
2001 Stats w/out Bledsoe
Eric Moulds....................67 rec 904 yds 5 tds
Peerless Price................55 rec 895 yds 7 tds
Travis Henry...................213 att 729 yds 4 tds
2002 Stats with Bledsoe
Eric Moulds.....................100 rec 1292 yds 10 tds
Peerless Price...................94 rec 1252 yds 9 tds
Travis Henry....................325 att 1438 yds 13 tds
I think they had just as much to do with Bledsoe's sucess, as Bledsoe had to do with theirs!
Dozerdog
05-31-2003, 09:40 PM
2001 Stats w/Rob Johnson/AVP/ Travis Brown
Eric Moulds....................67 rec 904 yds 5 tds
Peerless Price................55 rec 895 yds 7 tds
Travis Henry...................213 att 729 yds 4 tds
Dozerdog
05-31-2003, 09:41 PM
2001 Stats w/Rob Johnson/AVP/ Travis Brown
3-13
2002 Stats with Bledsoe
8-8
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 09:45 PM
They had weapons too.
McNair had...
Derric Mason................79 rec 1012 yds 5 tds
Eddie Geroge...............343 att 1165 yds 12 td
Defense........................9th Overall
Brady had...
nobody show up this last season. Not one WR broke even 900 yds and RB didn't break 1000 yds. Doens't mean he didn't have weapons tho, Brown and A. Smith had very good season in 2001, just didn't step in 2002. Couldn't even rely on defense that ranked 21 overall.
Favre had...
Donald Driver...............70 rec 1064 yds 15.2 9 tds
Terry Glenn..................56 rec 817 yds 2 tds (Drew made him a Pro bowler)
Ahman Green...............286 att 1240 yds 7 tds
Defense........................11th Overall
Collins had...
Tiki Barber....................304 att 1387 yds 11 tds
Amani Toomer...............82 rec 1343 yds 8 tds
Jeremy Shockey............74 rec 894 yds 2 tds (argubly best TE in NFL)
Defense........................10th Overall
Kicker22705
05-31-2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Dozerdog
2001 Stats w/Rob Johnson/AVP/ Travis Brown
3-13
2002 Stats with Bledsoe
8-8
In the end i guess thats the most important one!
Originally posted by Kicker22705
It can be argued wheather or not Bledsoe had weapons coming into the season. After all, the weapons he had around him this season didn't evolve into those prolific weapons we know themn as today, until Bledsoe came to Buffalo.
2001 Stats w/out Bledsoe
Eric Moulds....................67 rec 904 yds 5 tds
Peerless Price................55 rec 895 yds 7 tds
Travis Henry...................213 att 729 yds 4 tds
2002 Stats with Bledsoe
Eric Moulds.....................100 rec 1292 yds 10 tds
Peerless Price...................94 rec 1252 yds 9 tds
Travis Henry....................325 att 1438 yds 13 tds
I think they had just as much to do with Bledsoe's sucess, as Bledsoe had to do with theirs!
Well, the only problem w/ the argument mitigating "Bledsoe's weapons coming into the season" is that he had his best games up front, right!
So what happened when all of those weapons developed further then?
Again, to my point.
I'm tellin' ya, asking Drew to change isn't going to happen. He's gonna play the way he has from Day 1. What's wrong w/ his play cannot be coached and particularly not at this point in his career.
We need to work around his shortcomings as much as we can. I'm tellin' ya now, and you can take this to the bank, that at some point during this season you're gonna throw your hands up into the air and see what I'm talking about. Sadly.
BTW, since no one apparently caught it, "it's the INTs stupid!"
Originally posted by Dozerdog
2001 Stats w/Rob Johnson/AVP/ Travis Brown
3-13
2002 Stats with Bledsoe
8-8
You wanna list the OL along w/ those?
Just curious. I'll name a few:
Heimburger, Hulsey, Ostroski was fading and oft injured and bad, Carman, Farris, Fina, Conaty started at C and we may not even resign him this season that's how highly our current mgt. thinks of him, Unutoa, and JJ and Sullivan were rookies!
As well, that year, '01, was the complete antithesis injury-wise that last season was. In '01, I think only one OL-man (starting) made it through the entire season while last year they all did for the most part. I think we lost 3 man-games to our starters to injury last year. That must have been at least a Bills record.
Guess that doesn't matter in "Drew's World" however, eh!
Besides, what happened to blaming the D that year? It was worse than last season? I guess it didn't apply back then, eh!?
Meanwhile, everyone talks now about the OL playing better.
I have to laugh when such inane comparisons are made to last season...
...and indeed I do. ;)
Kicker22705
06-01-2003, 01:20 PM
the 2001 oline gave up just as many sacks as the 2002 and the oline which many have been better talent wise, was still just as unproven.
This year heading into the season we had a 2nd year RT Jennings play LT, a LT Teague playing C, a 2nd year LT playing RG, and a Rookie RT. This oline was in complete disaray heading into training camp. This could easily have blown up in our faces as well as how good it worked out. We got lucky.
"Besides, what happened to blaming the D that year? It was worse than last season? I guess it didn't apply back then, eh!?"
the D may have sucked then too, but the offense was even more horrendous. Bledsoe and the O at least held up their end of the bargain by at least generate 2wice as many points than the previous one regardless of a bad defense or not.
"We need to work around his shortcomings as much as we can"
i couldn't agree with you more! Drew has short comings just like any other QB. His short coming is forcing throws into coverage. If we put him in a situation of a balance offense where he doesn't have to throw as much as he does, especially into coverage, his mistakes will greatly reduce. That is why i'm so hyped on the bills shifting their focus to the running game.
On your OL comments, come on!
JJ in his second season was HUGE after a GREAT first year. Sullivan sucked in his first year on the few reps he got.
Brown was proven, Teague was proven, JJ was proven! MW was a top pick which none of the other OL-men we had the year before were even close too. Others were so old that they probably had to eat calcium as if it were table sugar!
There was absolutely no comparison. I agree that it'll be much better this season, and I've been raving that we're gonna have one of the best starting OL's in the league this year. But there was an enormous gap between that of '01 and of '02.
As to Drew, what we need is a situation where we don't have obvious passing plays all the time. One way of doing that is by not passing most of the time. The problem was just as much Gilbride's as it was Drew's. They reinforced each other's weaknesses IMO.
That's exactly why I'm so concerned now that Gilbride is the QBC too. It's a classic case of "the fox guarding the henhouse." It's a total conflict of interests if you ask me.
Captain gameboy
06-01-2003, 02:10 PM
So.....
To explain the 3-13 performance of 2001 and specifically discuss the pitiful offensive performance that year that Dozer mentions, a second variable is brought in to counter; that being the performance of the offensive line.
So now we have a multi variable statistical argument.
By definition, the more variables involved, the greater the fallacy of assigning specific event cause to a specific variable.
But interceptions are treated differently-as one variable events. No mention (because absolutely no knowlege), of reciever actions, reads, direction of receiver cuts, coaching preparation (which leads to reads) or anything else.
The statistician might be happy with this, but the statistician is not a logician. The logician must draw reasonable conclusions from such data and make decisions. The successful logician is not an ESPN employee trying to fill hours of space with unsupportable conclusions.
He is in no jepardy for his mistakes.
The logician understands that mutli variable events must be judged with greater knowlege than the statistician provides. Interceptions are, in many cases, multi variable events. Playoff games are infinite variable events.
The 32 general managers (logicians) are asked on April 1st, 2002, "What the most glaring deficiency the Buffalo Bills have." They answer in near unanimity, that the quarterback position is the most glaring weaknesss.
The same group is asked on December 31, 2002 the same question. Not one answers that the QB postion is a weakness for the Buffalo Bills.
The logician believes the problem is solved, but the vituperative comments never end from those who believe in providing single variable answers to mutli variable events.
Dozerdog
06-01-2003, 02:33 PM
Translation-
Without Bledsoe- 3-13
With Bledsoe 8-8
Bledsoe with a gelled offensive line, and a much improved D= Playoffs???
Kicker22705
06-01-2003, 02:37 PM
Wow?!?! i had to read that 3 times before i knew what you meant gameboy. LOL.
So youre calling wys a statistician? sry, me fail unglish 3 and 4/3 times/?
Captain gameboy
06-01-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Dozerdog
Translation-
Without Bledsoe- 3-13
With Bledsoe 8-8
Bledsoe with a gelled offensive line, and a much improved D= Playoffs???
That pretty much sums it up.
We've got a pretty good QB, not perfect, but pretty good. We've got a revitalized franchise with many positive changes that might not have happened had the move not been made-nobody knows.
QB's are not pitchers, and football isn't baseball. There are too many variables to draw accurate conclusions from some stats.
BillsMan80
06-01-2003, 08:41 PM
Wys...Division Ratio...
Think about the competition...
Gannon-KC, SD, Denver: Do those teams even have Pass Ds?
McNair-Ind, Jac, Hou: Tough competition eh?
Manning-Ten, Jac, Hou: Ditto.
Collins-Wsh, Dal, Phi: One good team.
Favre-Min, Det, Chi: Cupcake City.
Bledsoe-Mia, NYJ, NE: Much tougher.
baalworship
06-01-2003, 09:13 PM
Gameboy:By definition, the more variables involved, the greater the fallacy of assigning specific event cause to a specific variable.
Exactly! The problem with stats is that you can lose sight of what you are interpreting. The best way to judge performance is often the easiest. Just watch the games! The fans know when the QB is sucking or not. And Bills fans ARE pretty smart. We obviously had a huge upgrade at QB with Bledsoe instead of Rojo and Van Pelt.
Originally posted by gameboy
So.....
To explain the 3-13 performance of 2001 and specifically discuss the pitiful offensive performance that year that Dozer mentions, a second variable is brought in to counter; that being the performance of the offensive line.
So now we have a multi variable statistical argument.
By definition, the more variables involved, the greater the fallacy of assigning specific event cause to a specific variable.
But interceptions are treated differently-as one variable events. No mention (because absolutely no knowlege), of reciever actions, reads, direction of receiver cuts, coaching preparation (which leads to reads) or anything else.
The statistician might be happy with this, but the statistician is not a logician. The logician must draw reasonable conclusions from such data and make decisions. The successful logician is not an ESPN employee trying to fill hours of space with unsupportable conclusions.
He is in no jepardy for his mistakes.
The logician understands that mutli variable events must be judged with greater knowlege than the statistician provides. Interceptions are, in many cases, multi variable events. Playoff games are infinite variable events.
The 32 general managers (logicians) are asked on April 1st, 2002, "What the most glaring deficiency the Buffalo Bills have." They answer in near unanimity, that the quarterback position is the most glaring weaknesss.
The same group is asked on December 31, 2002 the same question. Not one answers that the QB postion is a weakness for the Buffalo Bills.
The logician believes the problem is solved, but the vituperative comments never end from those who believe in providing single variable answers to mutli variable events.
This coming from someone who thought that based on 3 of 4 plays in a half a drive and absolutely nothing else for an entire game v. Pittsburgh in the playoffs, Drew played an oustanding game!
10 of 21 for what, 102 yards?
Uhhuh!
To approach any of this you first have to be willing and able to come to grips w/ the truth and reality!
Originally posted by baalworship
Exactly! The problem with stats is that you can lose sight of what you are interpreting. The best way to judge performance is often the easiest. Just watch the games! The fans know when the QB is sucking or not. And Bills fans ARE pretty smart. We obviously had a huge upgrade at QB with Bledsoe instead of Rojo and Van Pelt.
Is that why you tried to pass off Drew's entire season last year based solely on his end-of-year stats just a day or so ago?
Just curious! B/c it sure doesn't match what you're (and others) are sayin' above or have said.
I fully agree!
As well, ever since RJ and Flutie became the standards for QB in Buffalo we've hurt ourselves as a result. We were so ingrained into mediocre to crap QB play that now just average seems like the world.
Oh well...
BTW baal, etal,
How would you rate all of Drew's games individually?
Tell us how you think he played and then why we won/lost the game!
I'll say that he played very well in 4 or 5, very average in another 3 or 4, and then completely lousy in another 7 or 8.
Disagree? Let's you and I go thru each game and take a peek, eh?
Before we do, just tell me the importance of TOs in the NFL? Both defensively and offensively if you will. Otherwise there's no sense in continuing!
Originally posted by Wys Guy
This coming from someone who thought that based on 3 of 4 plays in a half a drive and absolutely nothing else for an entire game v. Pittsburgh in the playoffs, Drew played an oustanding game!
10 of 21 for what, 102 yards?
Uhhuh!
To approach any of this you first have to be willing and able to come to grips w/ the truth and reality!
Bledsoe got the "W" when Brady was ineffective and then got hurt. He did it as well coming off the bench after not having played in 4 months and without taking the majority of snaps in practice, against the best defense in the NFL that year. Was he perfect, no. But he didn't make any costly mistakes like the INT's and fumbles you like to mention, and even threw a TD and led a FG drive.
BillsMan80
06-01-2003, 10:50 PM
Wys, I'll do it for you...
NYJ-Average, STs lost that game for us.
@Min-Played very well.
@Den-Played well. Henry's fumble and bad defense in key situations lost game for us.
Chi-Played well again.
Oak-Very average. Costly INT, but played ok the rest of the game. Defense and Drew combined as the main reasons.
@Hou-Played well.
@Mia-Played average, but did enough to win the game.
Det-Played well.
NE-Played lousy, but this was a complete team loss.
@KC-Played very average, but that INT pushes this to the lousy column. Gilbride deserves some blame for his playcalling.
@NYJ-Played lousy, but team effort was pathetic.
Mia-Played excellent in win.
@NE-Played lousy and cost us a chance to be close.
SD-Played very lousy in this one.
@GB-Horrible job, but Favre was just as bad.
Cin-Played well.
By my count, I have 7 Games where he played well, played 3/4 in Very Average, and I have 6/5 games in the lousy department.
Originally posted by Doc
Bledsoe got the "W" when Brady was ineffective and then got hurt. He did it as well coming off the bench after not having played in 4 months and without taking the majority of snaps in practice, against the best defense in the NFL that year. Was he perfect, no. But he didn't make any costly mistakes like the INT's and fumbles you like to mention, and even threw a TD and led a FG drive.
OK, so you think that 3 plays on a drive begun at the opponent's 40 YL defines an outstanding game! I beg to differ. I think that going 7 or 18 for only 66 yards and contributing absolutely nothing else for the entire second half after that more than negates a series of three great plays for which the D clearly had not adjusted. If they had adjusted, then how do you explain Drew's complete and utter ineffectiveness for the other 6 or 7 drives that he was in?
Gameboy agrees w/ you BTW, so you're in good company! I just think that if Brady had done that you'd be riding him like a mule! Or any other QB for that matter. It's truly unbelieveable! It also explains why you and others are content w/ a QB who has 18 TOs in our most pivotal and important games while I am not.
But that's OK. Call it a difference in expectations! I suppose I simply have higher standards b/c I didn't set the bar at RJ and Flutie like everyone else seems to have.
BTW Doc,
In the name of "looking at complete games" as some of your "colleagues" have harped on, how about this fact:
If it had been up to Drew alone, the Pats would have lost b/c the Steelers scored 17 while Drew was only instrumental in 7 of the Pats' 24 which wouldn't have been enough for the win!
Where's everyone's "we've gotta look at the entire game" theory now, which BTW I fully agree with!
Kicker22705
06-01-2003, 11:22 PM
Can we at least agree on one thing.
With a higher emphasis on the running game, a talented gelled offensive line, and hopefully a sound defense, Drew has everything he needs to perform up to and beyond expectations this season.
There are no excuses this year (baring injuries) that Bledsoe will have a career year. He has the weapons and a more managable role (unlike last year) to take us deep into the playoffs.
Anything less than a playoff appearance will be a disappointment.
Originally posted by BillsMan80
Wys, I'll do it for you...
NYJ-Average, STs lost that game for us.
@Min-Played very well.
@Den-Played well. Henry's fumble and bad defense in key situations lost game for us.
Chi-Played well again.
Oak-Very average. Costly INT, but played ok the rest of the game. Defense and Drew combined as the main reasons.
@Hou-Played well.
@Mia-Played average, but did enough to win the game.
Det-Played well.
NE-Played lousy, but this was a complete team loss.
@KC-Played very average, but that INT pushes this to the lousy column. Gilbride deserves some blame for his playcalling.
@NYJ-Played lousy, but team effort was pathetic.
Mia-Played excellent in win.
@NE-Played lousy and cost us a chance to be close.
SD-Played very lousy in this one.
@GB-Horrible job, but Favre was just as bad.
Cin-Played well.
By my count, I have 7 Games where he played well, played 3/4 in Very Average, and I have 6/5 games in the lousy department.
Jets: And of course Drew's INT leading to 7 Jets' points didn't matter in a game that went to OT, right?
Minn.: Agree, yes he did play very well against a 6-10 team w/ a terrible D!
Denver: Yes, he did play very well.
Chicago: Yes, again, he did play very well against another team w/ a terrible D that finished 4-12!
Oakland: Let's not be bashful now! He actually had 2 INTs, back-to-back since your memory fails you. I even mentioned this the other day in a thread that you partook of! So what's wrong, are your Bledsoe selective memory cells kicking in?! BTW, both of those INTs went for 14 points; 7 directly and 7 indirectly on the drive following. In any case, the game ended on the first one and was iced w/ the 2nd!!! Naturally you don't think those were anything big, eh!
Houston: Yes, he played pretty well although it was Henry's 159 rushing yards and 2 TDs that carried the O that day. As well, Drew did play reasonably well again, v. a team that finished 4-12 in its first year in the league!
Miami (1): No, he played very, very average at best w/ an under 50% completion %, less than 200 yards, with his only real contribution offensively on a broken defensive play accounting for nearly half of his passing yards for the day. Other than that play, Henry had more yards rushing, averaged 6.0 YPC, and between him and the D who had 6 TOs and scored 7 of 23 points, it was them who played well enough to win. If the D hadn't shown and Henry hadn't amassed 160 controlling yards, 16 points would not have been enough to win that game!
Detroit: No, he didn't play well. We almost lost that game in case you don't remember. He only had 1 TD on over 300 yards against Detroit's sorry D. Two of our 3 TD drives begun at near midfield due to good STs play and solid D! If Drew had played well, then he would have converted on 1st-and-goal at the Detroit 9 YL instead of getting sacked for a loss of 8, then throwing 2 incompletions to only net us a FG w/ the game tied at 14 early in the second half. Two big passing plays pretty much summed up Drew's day! Consistency sure wasn't in his lexicon that day!
N.E. (1): Yes, he did play lousy, yes, it was a complete team loss. Agreed.
K.C.: Again, don't be bashful now! Yes, I'll blame Gilbride, but Gilbride didn't throw that INT on 2nd-and-10 at the K.C. 40. And what, is Drew barred from audibling running plays? Either way, while Gilbride may have been the idiot that he is, Drew did nothing in the way of "premier QBs" to help us win. Henry played his heart out, the D played their hearts out, the only reason we lost from an execution standpoint is b/c of Drew. No one else had any TOs and every other component of the team did what it was supposed to do! Once again, trying to push Drew's responsibilities onto someone else!
Jets (2): NO!!! The rest of the team didn't play lousy! Henry averaged 4.9 YPC and if you want to talk about Gilbride, how about calling him on this game where Henry only got 17 carries. He still had a TD. All 14 of the Jets' 2nd Q points were off of Drew INTs! If he doesn't toss those, then we are knotted at 3 at the half if in fact we don't score from Jets' territory. There were 3 TOs in that game and all 3 were Drew's. But that really didn't matter, right?! I see! And other than those 2 INTs that set the Jets up at midfield, the D only allowed 17 other points. So while they didn't play in stellar fashion, they weren't all that poor either. Drew sure didn't do much to help them, eh!
Miami (2): Yes, he had a very good game in that game albeit that it was mostly on big plays. Let's also give Henry some credit for having 151 rushing yards, 178 total yards, and also the D, for not playing an incredible game, but at least for holding the Fins to 21 points. W/o Henry's rushing game, Drew may have faced far greater pressure.
N.E. (2): Yes, we agree, Drew did play lousy. He had 4 of the team's 5 TOs which led to 10 Pats' points, one setting them up at our own 9 YL w/ an INT to a DE Seymour. (Price had the other TO). The other TO went cost us 7. In a game decided by 10, that was everything. Take 7 from the Pats, add 7 to us, and we win! Plain and simple. D did their job, Henry did his even though he could only do so much on 15 carries.
S.D.: Yes, he did play very lousy in this one in spite of not having had any TOs. We won this game entirely b/c of Henry and the D. Gilbride tried to force Drew right up until it was almost too late however!
G.B.: No, Favre was not "just as bad!" Drew had 4 TOs, Favre had only 2. Drew threw on on a 3rd-and-goal at G.B.'s 4 YL and another to set up G.B.'s only TD at our 39 YL. Favre didn't do that! Drew's TO's cost us two scoring drives and a sure first score and at least a FG but likely a TD if he could have scored on gimme drive begun at G.B.'s 6 YL. Favre came through in the clutch, Drew didn't!!!
Cincy: I wouldn't say Drew played well. I'd say he played OK. The whole team was flat IMO. I thought it was one of the most boring games all season long. We could have iced the game early in the third up by 17 at the time, but Drew fumbled on 2nd-and-10 at the Cincy 10 YL to give Cincy the ball back and negate the icing score. We came back, but it took nearly 3 Qs to hit 27 v. a very bad Cincy team. He played OK, but nothing stellar. But like I said, it seemed as if something just wasn't right for that game that had nothing to do w/ Drew.
So let's tally up the games, shall we:
Good games: Minnesota, Denver, Chicago, Houston, Miami (2)
Average ones: Jets (1), Miami (1), Detroit, Cincy
Fair to Poor ones: Oakland, N.E. (1), K.C., Jets (2), N.E. (2), S.D., G.B.
So there you have it. 5 good to very good games, 4 average ones, and 7 poor ones. Note the teams in each category. And if you really want, move the Oakland game to the average category. It doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Kicker22705
Can we at least agree on one thing.
With a higher emphasis on the running game, a talented gelled offensive line, and hopefully a sound defense, Drew has everything he needs to perform up to and beyond expectations this season.
There are no excuses this year (baring injuries) that Bledsoe will have a career year. He has the weapons and a more managable role (unlike last year) to take us deep into the playoffs.
Anything less than a playoff appearance will be a disappointment.
Yeah, for the most part we can agree on that. We'll have to look at the entire season as well. If N.E. isn't as good as everyone thinks they're gonna be as I believe will occur, and if the Jets continue their struggling ways, then I'll expect more out of the team and Drew in the division and I'll expect more than a simple playoff appearance. I'll expect at least 10-6, and more optimistically, a game or two better dependent upon how good Miami is.
I agree that there will be no more excuses. If Drew plays like that again this season, then I expect you and others to be just as critical or I'm gonna think everyone prefers that Drew have great stats but doesn't care what happens to the team. It's almost that way now.
As well, I think Gilbride's arse should be on the line as well and frankly, if he calls games this season like he did last again, then I'd dump his arse at midseason and instill someone else! He's just as guilty as Drew and Drew wouldn't have had so much influence negatively in games had Gilbride been able to reason his way out of a wet paper bag.
Kicker22705
06-02-2003, 12:12 AM
Good games: Minnesota, Denver, Chicago, Houston, Miami (2)
Average ones: Jets (1), Miami (1), Detroit, Cincy
Fair to Poor ones: Oakland, N.E. (1), K.C., Jets (2), N.E. (2), S.D., G.B.
Isn't that logical? For a Qb to have good games against bad teams, and have fair to poor ones against good ones? Considering teams were absolutely geared to stop bledsoe and Gilbride's 1 dimensional pass happy offense. What Qb can suceed in 1 dimensional pass happy offense. Gannon, Marino, and maybe Warner. Every other Qb needs a great running game to keep the defense honest.
Kicker22705
06-02-2003, 12:36 AM
Travis Henry's stats are just as misleading as Bledsoe's numbers. They both have solid pro-bowl numbers and have some great games but really disappear in others.
Henry's Ineffective/Bad Games
(* underused)
Minnesota......................12 att 30 yds 2.5 ypc 0 tds 1 fb
Denver...........................12 att 35 yds 2.9 ypc 1 td 1 fb
Chicago*........................12 att 68 yds 5.7 ypc 0 td 1 fb
Oakland..........................15 att 58 yds 3.9 ypc 1 td 0 fb
Detroit............................19 att 64 yds 3.4 ypc 2 tds 1 fb
New England*................11 att 53 yds 4.8 ypc 0 td 0 fb
New England*................15 att 60 yds 4.0 ypc 0 td 1 fb
Green Bay.......................20 att 46 yds 2.3 ypc 0 td 1 fb
Cincinnati........................30 att 80 yds 2.7 ypc 0 tds 2 fbs
We need balance. Seems either Bledsoe has a good game and Travis doesn't or Travis does and Bledsoe doesn't. We need balance so they can play off eachother's success.
Captain gameboy
06-02-2003, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
This coming from someone who thought that based on 3 of 4 plays in a half a drive and absolutely nothing else for an entire game v. Pittsburgh in the playoffs, Drew played an oustanding game! ....
To approach any of this you first have to be willing and able to come to grips w/ the truth and reality!
As you suggest, Let's come right to grips "w/the truth and reality!"
Can you produce this quote or claim that you state I made?
Here's the quote.:
"I'm pretty sure most football fans would not consider Bledsoe's performance in the AFC championship game two years ago as being "horrendous."
You turn that quote around in your above "restatement," claiming I said he played "outstanding."
It's just incredible.
I'll offer you a wager. If you can find anywhere I made the claim you said I did, I'll donate $1000.00 to your favorite charity. If you can't then you publicly admit that you can't, and agree to never rewrite other people's posts, with grossly exaggerated rewrites.
Yeah, I never claimed he played "outstanding" either. However I find it interesting that you talked about him being 10-21 for 102 yards, ignoring the fact that he didn't commit those turnovers you vilify him for last year, while tossing a TD. Again all coming off the bench rusty and cold to face the best defense in the NFL. What I saw him do is what Brady did all season long: not make mistakes and let it be a total team effort. I happen to believe that with a good defense, Bledsoe won't be the risk-taker he had to be.
Captain gameboy
06-03-2003, 02:30 PM
I'm waiting.
It's been 31 hours since I asked you to back up your claim.
Anything yet, or is simply another grossly exaggerated, inaccurate statement?
Jan Reimers
06-03-2003, 03:07 PM
Why the endless debate over Bledsoe's performance last year. We all know that when he was forced to throw too much--either because the D got us behind, or we abandoned the running game, or both--the opposing D sat back and ate his lunch.
Let's see what he can do this year, with a more experienced O line, a blocking FB and TE, a balanced running attack, and a much improved D. If he puts up numbers similar to last year--particularly the critical INTs--I'll be disappointed.
Captain gameboy
06-03-2003, 05:35 PM
34 hours now, and a "super moderator" is incapable of providing evidence to support a claim he made that, if true, would net his favorite charity $1000.00. Read my above post.
His only jeapordy, to admit the inaccuracy, and agree to to not restate other's posts in an exaggerated manner.
Throne Logic
06-04-2003, 06:46 AM
Here's how I view it:
Drew has a flaw. He tried to force balls into places he has no business throwing them. Against poor teams, he gets away with hit. Against good teams, he doesn't. Drew needs to learn when to try and when not to.
Gilbride just fuels the fire behind this flaw. He always has. KG needs to learn how to utilize the running game properly.
I too, am concerned about KG being the QB Coach as well as OC. I'm just not convinced these two head-strong, pass-happy guys (Drew and Kevin) are going to help each other. It's like one drug addict trying to quit while hanging out with another druggie. Just don't see it happening.
Well and concisely stated TL!!!
For a flaw however, it sure is a big one and one that most should worry about heading into the playoffs for a 3 or 4 string of games.
gameboy,
I'm getting a little bit tired of your antics here!
I think our debate is over semantics essentially. So fine, I'll humor you!
Yes, I'll stick by "horrendous", now please do us all a favor and find a word to classify that game for us!!!
You completely avoid the context of the entire original debate that we were having and that was that you implied, indicated, partially stated, again, choose your words there as I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings by selecting a word that's only 97% accurate!
I posted Drew's performance for that game and you, along w/ others, essentially stated that if "not for Drew, the Pats would have lost!" I was merely trying to point out the folly of that, or any similar statement!
So time for you to ante up here!
Please classify that game for us! You apparently felt that it was completely laughable that I said it was horrendous! And I'll even do you a favor, and even though I've done this on at least half a dozen other occasions, I'll go ahead and post his drive-by-drive contributions for that game:
First of all, the Pats scored only 17 offensive points in that game. Their STs scored 7. Of the 17, Drew had only directly to do w/ one TD, that was on the second half of the very first drive when he had come in for Brady.
Brady was 12 of 18 for 115, 6.4 YPA on the day. Drew was 10 of 21 for 102. 4.9 YPA.
Bledsoe played for more than a half in the game. He came in for Brady, who got injured in the 2nd, and finished off a drive begun near N.E.'s 20. Brady got them to the PIT 40, Drew took it in from there on:
a 3 for 3 for 36 yards effort! VERY nice Drew!
That was it for the first half. In the second half, Drew posted the following numbers:
2nd drive: 1 for 4 for 3 yards
3rd drive: 0 for 1 and another sack for -10
4th drive: 3 for 5 for 34, incomplete on 3rd-and-4 at the PIT 26 to stall the drive
5th drive: 3 for 7 for 29 and another sack for a loss of -1
6th drive: 0 for 1
7th drive: Pats ran Smith to run out the clock.
NOW, and I've asked you this before gb, but you are the one who keeps saying that Drew wasn't horrendous. So what word would you use to describe that performance?????
For the game he was 10/21 for 102 yards, 47.6% compl., 4.9 YPA,
and in the second half he was:
7/18 for 66 yards, 38.9% compl., 3.7 YPA
That last one may be the issue here gb!!! Do you consider Drew's second half performance anything other than horrendous??? Because other than half a drive elsewhere, that was his performance in this game that everyone raves over and says that the Pats couldn't have won w/o Drew or if Brady had stayed in!!!
You, and many others, keep saying that the only reason that the Pats won that game was b/c of Drew! Oh? How so?
Seems to me that if the Pats had allowed one more point and their STs hadn't put up a TD, then they would have lost, eh? As well, how do you consider a QB who only contributed to 1 TD of 24 points is the reason why the team won amidst a very good defensive and STs performance? I mean, Brady threw for more yards in less time!!
So please categorize that game for us so that we can move on w/ this. Yes, I'll stand by my statement that it was horrendous! Now I'm curious as to what you think it would be?
As well, if Drew plays this marvelously all season, as he did in at least a game last season, then how many games would you suppose we'll win???
Just curious gb!
So there's your evidence for at least the second time. Perhaps instead of a crap faucet perhaps you'll answer the questions. BTW, I posted the exact same stuff in another thread of which you partook and you ignored my request for the same assessment. So for someone who talks so big, perhaps you'd better start putting up some statements yourself!
As well, don't be limited by my request! If you want to step outside the parameters of the problem at hand and simply tell all the good boys and girls which of those drives you feel was deserving of individual accolades such that only Drew, and no other QB in the league of the other 31 starters that year, could have done what he did in any single drive of the second half! Feel free. Oh, I'm curious!
Man? or mouse?
Oh, sorry, didn't like that? My bad.
Balls? No balls?
:D
It's really great to see that your standards for our QB play are so high gb!
I really think the RJ/Flutie era destroyed any remembrances of Kelly or any basis for the standard of solid QB play in Buffalo. I really do! All everyone says is "he's better than RJ" as if Rob was any sort of standard.
Brady led the Pats to NO points in his almost-full half of a game Wys, and there was no guarantee he would have led them to that TD seeing as how on the series prior to that one, he had a 1st and 10 at the Pgh 36 yard line and proceeded to lose yards and forced the Pats to punt. I could care less WHAT his completion percentage was, he just didn't do anything in his time in the game. Again I think you seriously discount the quality of Pgh's defense and the rustiness of Bledsoe, and you talking about his completion percentage WITHOUT mentioning his TD/INT or fumble ratio shows your bias, plain and simple. Now had Bledsoe not been the backup QB, the Steelers would have eaten Damon Huard alive, so yes I DO think that Bledsoe won that game, because those 7 points were the margin of victory. Again it wasn't pretty, but it got the job done.
Captain gameboy
06-04-2003, 09:22 AM
It wasn't too hard of a challenge Wys, and I'm not guilty of any "antics."
Neither is this a semantics debate. I said the performance was not "horrrendous."
You said I think it was "tremendous."
That is inaccurate, unfair an obviously unsubstantiated.
In logic class texbooks this tactic is called exagerration-the deliberate gross overstatement of someones words or actions to win a point. It goes right with non sequitor, red herring and many other rhetorical fallacies.
My offer was simple. Prove to me and everyone else your claim that I ever said his performance was outstanding. I've tried, politely and discretely, to get you to stop this in at least four seperate, specific paragraphs, as you know.
You wouldn't. Instead along comes another foot long replay.
For the last time, don't inaccurately rewrite my posts, or claim you know what think, If you do, I'm going to ask you, again, to prove your claims.
Throne Logic
06-04-2003, 09:27 AM
OK, I'm growing tired of the Playoff game pull.
Going into that game, the defense was designed to stop Brady and his short accuracy game. When Drew entered the game they needed to make adjustments, which they failed to do quick enough. This gave Drew enough time to move 40 yards down field using the brut force approach. After that drive, the adjustments were made and Drew didn't do anything useful for the rest of that game. Aside from that initial "surpise" drive from the 40, his performance was mediocre at best.
I'm not necessarily trying to knock Drew. I'm just sick of folks using this example of his abilities. The only thing Drew had over any other strong armed backup was his years of experience, which most likely helped him keep some of his poise. Backups are often immediately successful while the defense makes the necessary adjustments.
lordofgun
06-04-2003, 09:37 AM
This whole discussion is really really really old.
Earthquake Enyart
06-04-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Perhaps instead of a crap faucet perhaps you'll answer the questions.
I'm glad I read all the way through this one. This gem was buried towards the end. :lmao:
Originally posted by gameboy
It wasn't too hard of a challenge Wys, and I'm not guilty of any "antics."
Neither is this a semantics debate. I said the performance was not "horrrendous."
You said I think it was "tremendous."
That is inaccurate, unfair an obviously unsubstantiated.
In logic class texbooks this tactic is called exagerration-the deliberate gross overstatement of someones words or actions to win a point. It goes right with non sequitor, red herring and many other rhetorical fallacies.
My offer was simple. Prove to me and everyone else your claim that I ever said his performance was outstanding. I've tried, politely and discretely, to get you to stop this in at least four seperate, specific paragraphs, as you know.
You wouldn't. Instead along comes another foot long replay.
For the last time, don't inaccurately rewrite my posts, or claim you know what think, If you do, I'm going to ask you, again, to prove your claims.
Once again gameboy, you completely miss the context of the original argument which WAS:
You had used that game as the basis for indicating that Drew has had a good playoff game. I can see why you used that set of 3 plays amidst the other 6 full games however, nevertheless, it was you who used that game as an indicator that Drew played a good game in the playoffs.
So again, and if you don't want to answer this, then please let's quit w/ the high school BS here; but the question is:
How would YOU rate that game? What kinds of adjectives would you use to describe it????
Come on gameboy! Dig deep! It's an easy question. In fact, if there's a word or two in there that you don't understand, just shoot me a PM and I'll clarify it for you and send you a link to an online dictionary!
If you can't answer that, go out and purchase a set! ;)
And if you don't, then at least have the grace to simply let this argument die.
Once again, I made the comment that that game was horrendous based upon and only after you used it in defense of Drew and as an indicator of a solid and good playoff performance by Drew. My initial comment was operating under the assumption that since you used it in defense of a "good game in the POs", then you must believe that it was at least "good"!
If not, then what was it????!!!!
"not good"
"OK"
"average"
WHAT???
This is truly unbelieveable!! Either clarify your defense or simply admit you are WRONG! Otherwise quit crawlin' up my arse w/ these little nursery school games please!
Originally posted by lordofgun
This whole discussion is really really really old.
Hey, I didn't resurrect it. I've got gameboy popping out of cracks and crevaces making inane insinuations every 2 weeks on this as he runs away and refuses to bring this to a closure insofar as he and I were "discussing."
What I'm getting sick of is as TL says, people using a single drive, to define an entire game for Drew. Or the performance of his team in spite of his own play to define a season. Or insinuations that he's perfect and nothing he does hindered our quest for wins last year.
That gets old too!
;)
gameboy?
You gonna ignore this yet again like you have the other half a dozen times when we did the same drill???
I surely didn't get a PM or e-mail from you indicating that any of the words in the question were beyond you vocabularly level, so that can't be it. Hmmm.....
Just curious.
I'll look for ya to raise the issue in another thread in several weeks again then...
:rolleyes:
Captain gameboy
06-07-2003, 09:16 AM
Wys. Just treated myself to your last effort. I not running from anything, IŽve got this thing called a career that takes me away from all of this for days on end as you know.
This is boring beyond belief but if youŽre going to continue to bring me into it, I must respond.
A careful examination of this thread will reveal it was you, not me that personalized it.
Now I see youŽre using your mod status to change memberŽs personal settings. Brave.
Enjoy it while it lasts, because IŽm quite far from home and donŽt have enough access time to change it back yet.
Thanks for the dictionary offer, I can do OK on my own.
The accusations answered, I can answer your question. The Patriots won, so I wouldnŽt consider his performance horrendous. Nothing more-nothing less. The exact same thing I said months ago.
Simple enough?
If youŽll simply agree to stop rewriting my posts, with grossly exaggerated claims, IŽll have no need to respond.
Again, simple enough?
XNOUGHT
06-07-2003, 05:01 PM
I like those Brady stats at the beginning of this thread!!!!
SABURZFAN
05-05-2007, 11:39 AM
those were good times
DAMN good times.........
SoCalBillsFan
05-05-2007, 05:41 PM
It's funny the beating Wys took, and he ended up right about Bledose all along...
LtBillsFan66
05-05-2007, 05:55 PM
It's funny the beating Wys took, and he ended up right about Bledose all along...
Was he right about Travis Brown, Shawn Bryson, Mark Campbell, Rob Johnson?
SoCalBillsFan
05-05-2007, 09:11 PM
didn't say he was...
Dozerdog
05-05-2007, 09:49 PM
It's funny the beating Wys took, and he ended up right about Bledose all along...He basically says everybody but the 3rd string backups suck. Every year it's the same old same old........and since 9 out of 10 players wo play in the NFL don't win a super bowl- he has a built in "See.... I was right" BS attitude.
He coined the classic "Take away Travis Henry's longest runs, and you have a 2.5 YPC average"
DraftBoy
05-05-2007, 09:54 PM
I really miss having that guy around...
SABURZFAN
05-05-2007, 10:32 PM
He coined the classic "Take away Travis Henry's longest runs, and you have a 2.5 YPC average"
:laughter:
don't tell denver.
THATHURMANATOR
05-07-2007, 07:29 AM
I really miss having that guy around...
Why? He was always too much of a "statman" for my liking... :puke:
Not even a "statman", a more like an altered “statman” he would take stats out until the looked the way he wanted to argue his useless points. You can't alter history to argue a point. That would be like saying well take away Hitler's Genocide; Antisemitism; and Race War and he would have been a great military leader. Obviously the examples are not on the same scale, but you can't take away parts of the story to make it suite you.
OpIv37
05-07-2007, 01:05 PM
why was this even bumped? The guy doesn't post here anymore- let it go people.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.