Bledsoe or Cassel

[PatsFanSince74]

Whether you agree or disagree their conclusion was quite opposite of what you said.
Who are the 17 in your database?

We're parsing here. CHFF said he was "almost great," not I.

CHFF drew (no pun intended) the same conclusion that I did. He doesn't belong in the HOF.

However, the very fact that CHFF went on for several paragraphs "discussing" the case for and against his inclusion in the HOF, ultimately coming down in the "against" column (as did I), shows that they thought that Bledsoe was "in the discussion" for the HOF. That's all I said.

The outcome of that discussion is another matter. A matter on which i agree with CHFF. In fact, I even went further than CHFF by saying that he only would have belonged in the discussion if he'd won a ring, which he didn't. CHFF thought he was worthy of being in the discussion sans ring.

So, he was "almost great" and doesn't belong in the HOF. That's what I said and that's what CHFF said.

In the final analysis, will Matt put up better numbers than Drew? Maybe, maybe not. Will he too win Playoff games and take a team to the SB? Maybe, maybe not. Will he do what Drew never could and close the deal? Maybe, maybe not. One guy is retired and has accomplished some of those things. The other is at the beginning of his career and will have a chance to do so. We'll have to stay tuned.

As for my database (SB era HOF QB's):

Games, Comp, Attempt, Comp % Attempt, Yards, Yards per Attempt, TD, INT, TD % Attempt, Int % Attempt, Pass Rating, TD/INT
Aikman, Troy 165 2,898 4,715 61.5% 32,942 6.99 165 141 3.5% 3.0% 81.6 1.17
Bradshaw, Terry 168 2,025 3,901 51.9% 27,989 7.17 212 210 5.4% 5.4% 70.9 1.01
Dawson, Len 211 2,136 3,741 57.1% 28,711 7.67 239 183 6.4% 4.9% 82.6 1.31
Elway, John 234 4,123 7,250 56.9% 51,475 7.10 300 226 4.1% 3.1% 79.9 1.33
Fouts, Dan 181 3,297 5,604 58.8% 43,040 7.68 254 242 4.5% 4.3% 80.2 1.05
Griese, Bob 161 1,926 3,429 56.2% 25,092 7.32 192 172 5.6% 5.0% 77.1 1.12
Jurgensen, Sonny 218 2,433 4,262 57.1% 32,224 7.56 255 189 6.0% 4.4% 82.6 1.35
Kelly, Jim 160 2,874 4,779 60.1% 35,467 7.42 237 175 5.0% 3.7% 84.4 1.35
Marino, Dan 242 4,967 8,358 59.4% 61,361 7.34 420 252 5.0% 3.0% 86.4 1.67
Montana, Joe 192 3,409 5,391 63.2% 40,551 7.52 273 139 5.1% 2.6% 92.3 1.96
Moon, Warren 208 3,988 6,823 58.4% 49,325 7.23 291 233 4.3% 3.4% 80.9 1.25
Namath, Joe 140 1,886 3,762 50.1% 27,663 7.35 173 220 4.6% 5.8% 65.5 0.79
Starr, Bart 196 1,808 3,149 57.4% 24,718 7.85 152 138 4.8% 4.4% 80.5 1.10
Staubach, Roger 131 1,685 2,958 57.0% 22,700 7.67 153 109 5.2% 3.7% 83.4 1.40
Tarkenton, Fran 246 3,686 6,467 57.0% 47,003 7.27 342 266 5.3% 4.1% 80.4 1.29
Unitas, Johnny 211 2,830 5,186 54.6% 40,239 7.76 290 253 5.6% 4.9% 78.2 1.15
Young, Steve 169 2,677 4,149 64.5% 33,124 7.98 232 107 5.6% 2.6% 96.8 2.17
TOTALS 3,233 48,648 83,924 623,624 4,180 3,255
AVERAGES 190.2 2,861.6 4,936.7 57.7% 36,683.8 7.46 245.9 191.5 5.1% 4.0% 81.8 1.32
MEDIANS 192.0 2,830.0 4,715.0 57.1% 33,124.0 7.42 239.0 189.0 5.1% 4.1% 80.9 1.29
HIGH 246 4,967 8,358 64.5% 61,361 7.98 420 266 6.4% 5.8% 96.8 2.17
LOW 131 1,685 2,958 50.1% 22,700 6.99 152 107 3.5% 2.6% 65.5 0.79

Drew's numbers:

Games Comp Attempt Comp % Attempt Yards Yards per Attempt TD INT TD % Attempt Int % Attempt Pass Rating TD/INT
Bledsoe, Drew 194 3,839 6,717 57.2% 44,611 6.64 251 206 3.7% 3.1% 77.1 1.22

 

[Double G]

Re: Bledsoe or Cassel????

I guess the irony of you in return being unjustly (but deliberately on my part) accused of being a newbie is lost on you who had done just that to me, a fan since the 60s, you newbie.

I went to my first Patriots game in 1969 vs the Oilers at Fenway park and we lost 14-0.........................

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Your database may be accurate. The question would be is it relevant? CHFF went with the so called live ball era for a reason. It's the era in which Drew was asked to perform.

If you've read my posts over the years, you'll see that I've never been a big supporter of Drew, for many of the reasons cited by yourself and others. However, when we look at the body of his achievement, it's not trivial. And, to some extent, I'm reacting to what I feel is unfair criticism of an outstanding player.

As for relative performance, I quite agree and have pointed out the questionable validity of comparative stats over the decades many times out here. Terry Bradshaw's career Pass Rating is 70.9, but no one suggests that it should have kept him out of the HOF. By the same token, the fact that Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas put up career Pass Ratings of 80.5 and 78.2 during the era in which they played is a tribute to their surpassing greatness. Bledsoe's Pass Rating is indeed one of the lowest of the new era in comparison with the HOF QB's. All reasons why he doesn't belong in the HOF. Also, his TD/INT ratio is one of the lowest you'll find.

The only conclusion I drew from his stats was that, if he had won a ring, he would have been "in the discussion" for the HOF. CHFF obviously agreed by painstakingly dissecting the case for his inclusion, even without a ring. We came to the same conclusion, though worded differently and, in my presentation, less pejoratively. Drew doesn't belong in the HOF.

 

[Ring 6]

We're parsing here. CHFF said he was "almost great," not I.

CHFF drew (no pun intended) the same conclusion that I did. He doesn't belong in the HOF.

However, the very fact that CHFF went on for several paragraphs "discussing" the case for and against his inclusion in the HOF, ultimately coming down in the "against" column (as did I), shows that they thought that Bledsoe was "in the discussion" for the HOF. That's all I said.

The outcome of that discussion is another matter. A matter on which i agree with CHFF. In fact, I even went further than CHFF by saying that he only would have belonged in the discussion if he'd won a ring, which he didn't. CHFF thought he was worthy of being in the discussion sans ring.

So, he was "almost great" and doesn't belong in the HOF. That's what I said and that's what CHFF said.

In the final analysis, will Matt put up better numbers than Drew? Maybe, maybe not. Will he too win Playoff games and take a team to the SB? Maybe, maybe not. Will he do what Drew never could and close the deal? Maybe, maybe not. One guy is retired and has accomplished some of those things. The other is at the beginning of his career and will have a chance to do so. We'll have to stay tuned.

As for my database (SB era HOF QB's):

Games, Comp, Attempt, Comp % Attempt, Yards, Yards per Attempt, TD, INT, TD % Attempt, Int % Attempt, Pass Rating, TD/INT
Aikman, Troy 165 2,898 4,715 61.5% 32,942 6.99 165 141 3.5% 3.0% 81.6 1.17
Bradshaw, Terry 168 2,025 3,901 51.9% 27,989 7.17 212 210 5.4% 5.4% 70.9 1.01
Dawson, Len 211 2,136 3,741 57.1% 28,711 7.67 239 183 6.4% 4.9% 82.6 1.31
Elway, John 234 4,123 7,250 56.9% 51,475 7.10 300 226 4.1% 3.1% 79.9 1.33
Fouts, Dan 181 3,297 5,604 58.8% 43,040 7.68 254 242 4.5% 4.3% 80.2 1.05
Griese, Bob 161 1,926 3,429 56.2% 25,092 7.32 192 172 5.6% 5.0% 77.1 1.12
Jurgensen, Sonny 218 2,433 4,262 57.1% 32,224 7.56 255 189 6.0% 4.4% 82.6 1.35
Kelly, Jim 160 2,874 4,779 60.1% 35,467 7.42 237 175 5.0% 3.7% 84.4 1.35
Marino, Dan 242 4,967 8,358 59.4% 61,361 7.34 420 252 5.0% 3.0% 86.4 1.67
Montana, Joe 192 3,409 5,391 63.2% 40,551 7.52 273 139 5.1% 2.6% 92.3 1.96
Moon, Warren 208 3,988 6,823 58.4% 49,325 7.23 291 233 4.3% 3.4% 80.9 1.25
Namath, Joe 140 1,886 3,762 50.1% 27,663 7.35 173 220 4.6% 5.8% 65.5 0.79
Starr, Bart 196 1,808 3,149 57.4% 24,718 7.85 152 138 4.8% 4.4% 80.5 1.10
Staubach, Roger 131 1,685 2,958 57.0% 22,700 7.67 153 109 5.2% 3.7% 83.4 1.40
Tarkenton, Fran 246 3,686 6,467 57.0% 47,003 7.27 342 266 5.3% 4.1% 80.4 1.29
Unitas, Johnny 211 2,830 5,186 54.6% 40,239 7.76 290 253 5.6% 4.9% 78.2 1.15
Young, Steve 169 2,677 4,149 64.5% 33,124 7.98 232 107 5.6% 2.6% 96.8 2.17
TOTALS 3,233 48,648 83,924 623,624 4,180 3,255
AVERAGES 190.2 2,861.6 4,936.7 57.7% 36,683.8 7.46 245.9 191.5 5.1% 4.0% 81.8 1.32
MEDIANS 192.0 2,830.0 4,715.0 57.1% 33,124.0 7.42 239.0 189.0 5.1% 4.1% 80.9 1.29
HIGH 246 4,967 8,358 64.5% 61,361 7.98 420 266 6.4% 5.8% 96.8 2.17
LOW 131 1,685 2,958 50.1% 22,700 6.99 152 107 3.5% 2.6% 65.5 0.79

Drew's numbers:

Games Comp Attempt Comp % Attempt Yards Yards per Attempt TD INT TD % Attempt Int % Attempt Pass Rating TD/INT
Bledsoe, Drew 194 3,839 6,717 57.2% 44,611 6.64 251 206 3.7% 3.1% 77.1 1.22

See this is where we diverge.
I do not think you can compare this list of QBs. 7 played in an era where the game was totally different. When Len Dawson played you could hit a WR anywhere as often as you wanted to until the ball was in the air. Offensive strategy was lower comp %, higher ypc, more Ints, more deep throws. Using QB rating for example, no one who played before 1980 was as good as Tony Eason.
You have to compare to contemporaies and Drew is near the bottom of this list in almost all categories against QBs who played in the same era under the same rules.

As far as the other part I dont think its splitting hairs to signify the difference of an opening line of lets look at the almost great career of Drew Bledsoe and the conclusion that all he was good at was throwing a lot.

You are taqking the hypothesis and using it as the conclusion when the article disproved the hypothesis. Thats a big difference.

 

[Ring 6]

We're parsing here. CHFF said he was "almost great," not I.

CHFF drew (no pun intended) the same conclusion that I did. He doesn't belong in the HOF.

However, the very fact that CHFF went on for several paragraphs "discussing" the case for and against his inclusion in the HOF, ultimately coming down in the "against" column (as did I), shows that they thought that Bledsoe was "in the discussion" for the HOF. That's all I said.

The outcome of that discussion is another matter. A matter on which i agree with CHFF. In fact, I even went further than CHFF by saying that he only would have belonged in the discussion if he'd won a ring, which he didn't. CHFF thought he was worthy of being in the discussion sans ring.

So, he was "almost great" and doesn't belong in the HOF. That's what I said and that's what CHFF said.

In the final analysis, will Matt put up better numbers than Drew? Maybe, maybe not. Will he too win Playoff games and take a team to the SB? Maybe, maybe not. Will he do what Drew never could and close the deal? Maybe, maybe not. One guy is retired and has accomplished some of those things. The other is at the beginning of his career and will have a chance to do so. We'll have to stay tuned.

As for my database (SB era HOF QB's):

Games, Comp, Attempt, Comp % Attempt, Yards, Yards per Attempt, TD, INT, TD % Attempt, Int % Attempt, Pass Rating, TD/INT
Aikman, Troy 165 2,898 4,715 61.5% 32,942 6.99 165 141 3.5% 3.0% 81.6 1.17
Bradshaw, Terry 168 2,025 3,901 51.9% 27,989 7.17 212 210 5.4% 5.4% 70.9 1.01
Dawson, Len 211 2,136 3,741 57.1% 28,711 7.67 239 183 6.4% 4.9% 82.6 1.31
Elway, John 234 4,123 7,250 56.9% 51,475 7.10 300 226 4.1% 3.1% 79.9 1.33
Fouts, Dan 181 3,297 5,604 58.8% 43,040 7.68 254 242 4.5% 4.3% 80.2 1.05
Griese, Bob 161 1,926 3,429 56.2% 25,092 7.32 192 172 5.6% 5.0% 77.1 1.12
Jurgensen, Sonny 218 2,433 4,262 57.1% 32,224 7.56 255 189 6.0% 4.4% 82.6 1.35
Kelly, Jim 160 2,874 4,779 60.1% 35,467 7.42 237 175 5.0% 3.7% 84.4 1.35
Marino, Dan 242 4,967 8,358 59.4% 61,361 7.34 420 252 5.0% 3.0% 86.4 1.67
Montana, Joe 192 3,409 5,391 63.2% 40,551 7.52 273 139 5.1% 2.6% 92.3 1.96
Moon, Warren 208 3,988 6,823 58.4% 49,325 7.23 291 233 4.3% 3.4% 80.9 1.25
Namath, Joe 140 1,886 3,762 50.1% 27,663 7.35 173 220 4.6% 5.8% 65.5 0.79
Starr, Bart 196 1,808 3,149 57.4% 24,718 7.85 152 138 4.8% 4.4% 80.5 1.10
Staubach, Roger 131 1,685 2,958 57.0% 22,700 7.67 153 109 5.2% 3.7% 83.4 1.40
Tarkenton, Fran 246 3,686 6,467 57.0% 47,003 7.27 342 266 5.3% 4.1% 80.4 1.29
Unitas, Johnny 211 2,830 5,186 54.6% 40,239 7.76 290 253 5.6% 4.9% 78.2 1.15
Young, Steve 169 2,677 4,149 64.5% 33,124 7.98 232 107 5.6% 2.6% 96.8 2.17
TOTALS 3,233 48,648 83,924 623,624 4,180 3,255
AVERAGES 190.2 2,861.6 4,936.7 57.7% 36,683.8 7.46 245.9 191.5 5.1% 4.0% 81.8 1.32
MEDIANS 192.0 2,830.0 4,715.0 57.1% 33,124.0 7.42 239.0 189.0 5.1% 4.1% 80.9 1.29
HIGH 246 4,967 8,358 64.5% 61,361 7.98 420 266 6.4% 5.8% 96.8 2.17
LOW 131 1,685 2,958 50.1% 22,700 6.99 152 107 3.5% 2.6% 65.5 0.79

Drew's numbers:

Games Comp Attempt Comp % Attempt Yards Yards per Attempt TD INT TD % Attempt Int % Attempt Pass Rating TD/INT
Bledsoe, Drew 194 3,839 6,717 57.2% 44,611 6.64 251 206 3.7% 3.1% 77.1 1.22

Also, Cassels #s (per not cumulative because thats just a rating of how much you played) better be better than Bledsoes or he will be benched.
I can guarantee you if he is 57% complete for 6.64/att and about 20 td and 17 Ints he will lose his job. QB don't compare today to 1995 either but the are much more comparable to pre 1980 and post 1980 which might as well be comparing hockey to roller derby.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

See this is where we diverge.
I do not think you can compare this list of QBs. 7 played in an era where the game was totally different. When Len Dawson played you could hit a WR anywhere as often as you wanted to until the ball was in the air. Offensive strategy was lower comp %, higher ypc, more Ints, more deep throws. Using QB rating for example, no one who played before 1980 was as good as Tony Eason.
You have to compare to contemporaies and Drew is near the bottom of this list in almost all categories against QBs who played in the same era under the same rules.

As far as the other part I dont think its splitting hairs to signify the difference of an opening line of lets look at the almost great career of Drew Bledsoe and the conclusion that all he was good at was throwing a lot.

You are taqking the hypothesis and using it as the conclusion when the article disproved the hypothesis. Thats a big difference.

I think I already acknowledged most of what you say about comparative stats in my response to Mo (#363 in this thread, just above). I also acknowledged that I was reacting to what I regarded as unwarranted criticism of an outstanding player. If you don't think that Drew Bledsoe was an outstanding quarterback, then we simply, flat out disagree. I'm not saying he was "great." I'm certainly not saying he belongs in Canton. But I do think he was an outstanding NFL QB.

On the rest , we'll have to agree to disagree. My view is that the very fact that CHFF even went through that lengthy discussion of whether Drew belonged in Canton makes the only "pro Drew" point I made, viz., that he would be "in the discussion" for the HOF. If you read my post, that's all I said.

And, to argue the logic of all of this, CHFF did not present the "almost great" statement as an hypothesis; they presented it as a given and then examined the arguments, pro and con, of whether this "almost great" QB belongs in Canton, on the assumption that only "great" QB's belong in Canton. There are, I am sure, others who belong in this "almost great" category as well. If you read that statement as an hypothesis, then it's something else on which we disagree here.
:deadhorse:

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Also, Cassels #s (per not cumulative because thats just a rating of how much you played) better be better than Bledsoes or he will be benched.
I can guarantee you if he is 57% complete for 6.64/att and about 20 td and 17 Ints he will lose his job. QB don't compare today to 1995 either but the are much more comparable to pre 1980 and post 1980 which might as well be comparing hockey to roller derby.

Granted (see my response to Mo)...otherworldly greats like Starr and Unitas did put up numbers that transcended their generation. And, save the hockey/roller derby sarcasm. I've been following and studying this game for a long time.

On the other hand, 44,611 yards and 251 TD's wouldn't necessarily be all that bad an outcome for Matt.

 

[Ring 6]

Granted (see my response to Mo)...otherworldly greats like Starr and Unitas did put up numbers that transcended their generation. And, save the hockey/roller derby sarcasm. I've been following and studying this game for a long time.

On the other hand, 44,611 yards and 251 TD's wouldn't necessarily be all that bad an outcome for Matt.

But you are confusing me. If you say the numbers dont translate across generations why did you post where Bledsoe compared to the median?

 

[Ring 6]

I think I already acknowledged most of what you say about comparative stats in my response to Mo (#363 in this thread, just above). I also acknowledged that I was reacting to what I regarded as unwarranted criticism of an outstanding player. If you don't think that Drew Bledsoe was an outstanding quarterback, then we simply, flat out disagree. I'm not saying he was "great." I'm certainly not saying he belongs in Canton. But I do think he was an outstanding NFL QB.

On the rest , we'll have to agree to disagree. My view is that the very fact that CHFF even went through that lengthy discussion of whether Drew belonged in Canton makes the only "pro Drew" point I made, viz., that he would be "in the discussion" for the HOF. If you read my post, that's all I said.

And, to argue the logic of all of this, CHFF did not present the "almost great" statement as an hypothesis; they presented it as a given and then examined the arguments, pro and con, of whether this "almost great" QB belongs in Canton, on the assumption that only "great" QB's belong in Canton. There are, I am sure, others who belong in this "almost great" category as well. If you read that statement as an hypothesis, then it's something else on which we disagree here.
:deadhorse:

Perhaps our difference in your last paragraph comes from the article being poorly written. Their conclusion totally contradicts the adjective they pinned on him in the opening. I supposed we would have to ask them why 2 totally contradictory comments are in the same article.

NO, I do not consider Drew Bledsoe and OUTSTANDING QB unless we differ on what qualifies as outstanding. IMO, outstanding is far above average. As a guideline (because talent level is not a constant) if there are 32 staring NFL QBs, I would assume about 12 fit in the 'average' category, 10 above 10 below. Of the 10 above average, I would assume there are 2-3 that are all time greats, HOFers, great QBs, etc. I would assume there are another 2-3 that would fit the 'outstanding' description, and 5 more that are between 'above average' and 'good'.
In other words, to be considered outstanding you would typically be one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL at that time.
I do not recall a time in Drew Bledsoe's career where I ever considered him one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL, and there was likely a roughly equal amount of time when I considered him top 10 (above avg, good, outstanding, great) or when I considered him in the middle 12 (average)
1993,1995,1999,2000,2001,2003 through the end of his career were certainly seasons where he would not be in that top 10.
1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002 are his possible top 10s.
I do not consider 5 above average to good and 9 average seasons to be outstanding regardless of how many times he threw the ball to compile numbers.
The 44,000 yards does not mean a lot to me in gauging quality, it gauges durability, which is a good quality as well, but playing a lot doesnt equal playing well.

Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things. Perhaps I am focussed on the quality of his play, and you are focussed on the volume of production. That is fine, we would just have different yardsticks.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The 44,000 yards does not mean a lot to me in gauging quality, it gauges durability, which is a good quality as well, but playing a lot doesnt equal playing well.

Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things. Perhaps I am focussed on the quality of his play, and you are focussed on the volume of production. That is fine, we would just have different yardsticks.

CHFF kinda dealt with that, too. Basically they said anyone who accepted volume stats absent quality stats to match as an indicator wasn't very football intelligent. It's why Marino makes the HOF absent a SB ring, he had both fairly consistently.

They were also pretty clear that they were discussing the hypothesis of whether he should even be in the discussion for HOF and the answer they came up with was a one word one - no. They also concluded that as a QB he was "ordinary", and I don't think outstanding QB's who fall just below HOF consideration would be considered all that ordinary...

Getting back to the original hypothesis though, Chris Price has an interesting piece up on a talk he had with Joe Theissman recently and not that he'd know anything compared to some of the scouting geniuses who populate this space, being merely an NFL QB who won a superbowl and all, but he's pretty high on Cassel...

 

[Ring 6]

CHFF kinda dealt with that, too. Basically they said anyone who accepted volume stats absent quality stats to match as an indicator wasn't very football intelligent. It's why Marino makes the HOF absent a SB ring, he had both fairly consistently.

They were also pretty clear that they were discussing the hypothesis of whether he should even be in the discussion for HOF and the answer they came up with was a one word one - no. They also concluded that as a QB he was "ordinary", and I don't think outstanding QB's who fall just below HOF consideration would be considered all that ordinary...

Getting back to the original hypothesis though, Chris Price has an interesting piece up on a talk he had with Joe Theissman recently and not that he'd know anything compared to some of the scouting geniuses who populate this space, being merely an NFL QB who won a superbowl and all, but he's pretty high on Cassel...

I'm OK with people who want to value compilers. Some people think Vinny Testaverde was a good QB.
I just disagree. I judge QBs by winning first. QBs that dont play at a real high level but play at an average to above average for a very long time often get compared to QBs that played at a high level by comparing the accumulation of stats. I just disagree. Doesn't make me right, but I rate quality over quantity, at least at the QB position.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Perhaps our difference in your last paragraph comes from the article being poorly written. Their conclusion totally contradicts the adjective they pinned on him in the opening. I supposed we would have to ask them why 2 totally contradictory comments are in the same article.

NO, I do not consider Drew Bledsoe and OUTSTANDING QB unless we differ on what qualifies as outstanding. IMO, outstanding is far above average. As a guideline (because talent level is not a constant) if there are 32 staring NFL QBs, I would assume about 12 fit in the 'average' category, 10 above 10 below. Of the 10 above average, I would assume there are 2-3 that are all time greats, HOFers, great QBs, etc. I would assume there are another 2-3 that would fit the 'outstanding' description, and 5 more that are between 'above average' and 'good'.
In other words, to be considered outstanding you would typically be one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL at that time.
I do not recall a time in Drew Bledsoe's career where I ever considered him one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL, and there was likely a roughly equal amount of time when I considered him top 10 (above avg, good, outstanding, great) or when I considered him in the middle 12 (average)
1993,1995,1999,2000,2001,2003 through the end of his career were certainly seasons where he would not be in that top 10.
1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002 are his possible top 10s.
I do not consider 5 above average to good and 9 average seasons to be outstanding regardless of how many times he threw the ball to compile numbers.
The 44,000 yards does not mean a lot to me in gauging quality, it gauges durability, which is a good quality as well, but playing a lot doesnt equal playing well.

Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things. Perhaps I am focussed on the quality of his play, and you are focussed on the volume of production. That is fine, we would just have different yardsticks.

In 43 years, only 51 quarterbacks have taken a team to the Super Bowl (27 have actually won one). Not all 51 were outstanding, by any means. But combining his stats with being one of a relatively small group to take a team to the SB, I'll say that Bledsoe was an outstanding QB, based both on quantity and quality of what he accomplished; not "great," not "HOF-worthy," but outstanding for sure.

In the long history of the NFL, only six QB's have passed for more yards than Drew. Is that a tribute only to his longevity and durability? Maybe, but I'm going to say there's more to it or the accomplishment wouldn't be that rare. Of those six, Peyton is the only one still playing. Were they all great? Nope. I wouldn't put Testaverde in the "great" category; nor would I put HOF'er Moon in it, but they both passed for over 45,000 yards. I would, however, say that Bledsoe, Moon and Testaverde were all outstanding quarterbacks. We disagree and we're not going to change each other's minds.

As for using the median earlier, it's a helpful starting point; no more, no less. Good place to start a discussion, subject to refinement and more careful reading.

We agree on the fact that the CHFF piece was poorly written.