Bledsoe or Cassel

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

It appears that to conclude Bledsoe'00/01 > Cassel'08, you must start with the premise Brady'01 = Brady'07.

But if you beleive Brady'07 > Brady'01 you will conclude Cassel'08> Bledsoe'00/01.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I remember watching the play and thinking, flag, free play. He could have thrown an interception there if he wanted. Of the few things that can go wrong on such a play (intentional grounding) one did. I thought that call was questionable too, actually, since the ball went beyond the line of scrimmage. It was a bad call.

The call was flat out wrong because Bledsoe knew exactly where he was trying to throw the ball and he had an open receiver not far from where the ball went. I do have some sympathy for the ref who probably never had to make a call quite like that before and couldn't believe that this was actually an attempt to complete a pass.

 

[Deus Irae]

Since 2000, Buffalo's been over .500 once. Bledsoe was the QB that season. In that stretch, the team's been 8-8 twice. Bledsoe was the QB for one of those two seasons. The year after Bledsoe left the Bills, Buffalo went from 9-7 to 5-11. Buffalo's followed that up with 3 consecutive 7 win seasons.

In Dallas, Bledsoe took over and the team went from 6-10 to 9-7. The team had Romo waiting in the wings and Parcells pulled Bledsoe in the middle of his second year there. As time has proven, that move was a waste of time. The Cowboys still haven't won a playoff game with Romo, and Parcells has moved on (One does have to note a very successful 13-3 regular season since then, however).

What people here continually overlook is the reality of the game. You can talk about a specific throw, or a specific game, but the reality of the game is greater than all of that.

Some more reality:

Bledsoe inherited a 2 win team in New England. His top running backs in his first two seasons were Leonard Russell and the decaying corpse of Marion Butts. His receiving corps consisted of such immortals as Brisby, Timpson and McMurtry. His formative years had him playing on a team that was so bereft on talent offensively that he learned to always look to his tight end in tough spots, a pattern which he never fully broke as he got older, and which clearly was a weakness when he had lesser tight ends than Ben Coates to throw to.

He had to deal with a front office power struggle that led to Parcells leaving and Carroll becoming coach, and had to watch as the only decent running backs he had moved on to New York and blew out their knees right after Parcells left. Nonetheless, while Parcells was coach and Bledsoe was still growing into the game, he took the team to the Super Bowl. We all know, or should know, the talent issues that hit the team following that.

Tom Brady once led a 9-7 team that didn't make the playoffs. Joe Montana didn't win any titles in Kansas City. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl and Peyton Manning's only won one. Even the greatest QBs in NFL history couldn't win games without a supporting cast. That's the reality of life.

No, Bledsoe was not as good as Brady. However, that just puts Bledsoe in the company of, arguably, every other QB in NFL history. He was better than Cassel, even if Cassel would have been better suited for the Patriots in years 1 & 2 under Belichick. This argument has been, is, and will be, a waste of time, because the Bledsoe Bashers haven't seen reason on the topic in a long, long time. It's true that some Bledsoe supporters have blinders on. That's a very small percentage, though, as Brady following Bledsoe shows Bledsoe in a comparatively harsh light. Unfortunately, the Bledsoe Bashers can't just be content with that. They have to make idiotic comments and fudge reality in order to make Bledsoe look as bad as possible.

It's too bad, too, because Bledsoe deserves more respect than that for helping to lift the team out of the cesspool of the Rust and McPherson days. And, for those of us who've been following the team long enough to remember those disasters laughingly called 'eras', that's definitely something to be thankful for.

 

[Deus Irae]

It appears that to conclude Bledsoe'00/01 > Cassel'08, you must start with the premise Brady'01 = Brady'07.

But if you beleive Brady'07 > Brady'01 you will conclude Cassel'08> Bledsoe'00/01.

Brady'01>Cassel'08. That really kills your assertion right there.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's an impossible argument. You say he had a successful season and Bledsoe hasn't.

Well, Bledsoe had successful seasons elsewhere, and unsuccessful ones as well.

The main factor is, Brady got hurt and Cassel got a chance to play with a good Patriots team, and he made the most of it.

So, it's an impossible comparison. How confident would you be in Cassel's record with the 2000 Patriots? do you think he would have won more than 5 games?

In the 2000s, Bledsoe had one season comparable to Cassel in 2008 (2002) and a lot that were worse.

And I'd frame things the opposite way: How successful would Bledsoe be with the 2008 Pats? He would have been better than Cassel for the first couple of games, obviously, but by the end of the season Cassel was playing well above Bledsoe's capabilities in the context of what Belichick and McDaniels (or Weis before him) demand from a QB. The Bledsoe backers are ignoring the second part of that sentence.

Bledsoe was a better gunslinger, certainly, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the all 2000s team would be hypothetically coached by Bill Belichick. In that case, wouldn't the QB on the team be someone that was capable of running his, McDaniels' and Weis' offense?

 

[Deus Irae]

Bledsoe was a better gunslinger, certainly, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the all 2000s team would be hypothetically coached by Bill Belichick. In that case, wouldn't the QB on the team be someone that was capable of running his, McDaniels' and Weis' offense?

Weis' offense (Especially in the very beginning) was different than McDaniels' offense, and McDaniels' offense in 2007 was different from the offense in any previous year under Belichick. This is, along with the talent of the offensive line and the reality that Cassel had Welker and Moss to throw to, why this argument is pretty useless.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Weis' offense (Especially in the very beginning) was different than McDaniels' offense, and McDaniels' offense in 2007 was different from the offense in any previous year under Belichick. This is, along with the talent of the offensive line and the reality that Cassel had Welker and Moss to throw to, why this argument is pretty useless.

Nice straw man, since I never indicated that that wasn't the case. Of course Wes' offense was different from McDaniels'- anyone who has watched the team at any point in their respective tenures can tell you that, even if they know next to nothing about football. That said, for all of their differences, one of the things that those offenses had in common was a strong emphasis on taking care of the ball and consistently making the right decisions. That's something that has been consistently underestimated on this board, whether it was a bunch of people advocating for signing Daunte Culpepper or people looking back now and saying that Bledsoe could have quarterbacked this team.

Cassel was capable in this regard, and Bledsoe wasn't. For all of his other elite talents (and he had a few of them), he wasn't exactly famous for making good decisions with the ball. He was a gunslinger, and while that doesn't make him a bad QB, it makes him a bad fit for both McDaniels' and Weis' offenses. That's completely independent of how they changed from year to year and the offensive talent surrounding the QB, so it is awfully relevant.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Brady'01>Cassel'08. That really kills your assertion right there.

No ****. It doesn't kill anything. Brady '01 > Cassel '08, and Brady '01 > Bledsoe '01.

 

[Ring 6]

When you're ahead, there's a big difference. You're not going to lead the team on a game winning drive when all you need to do is keep the drive going, let the air out of the ball.

What did Brady say about the near sack on the throw to Redmond? He said a sack there and they take the air out of the ball. That's exactly it, you have to look at the game situation. Being ahead is far different than being tied.

Bledose passed 18 times and they ran 18 times in the 2nd half. That refutes what you are saying.

It seems like you are trying to create theories in defense of Bledsoes performance then see if they fit.

 

[Ring 6]

It's so odd that you'll say the team overcame putting up only 3 points in a half, and yet you would never use those same words to describe Brady's 3 points in a half or zero points in a half against the Raiders.

I would say that, but I would also say that Brady led the team to a win, being 80% of the reason for it in the second half of that Raider game.
There is a difference between playing poorly in the 2nd half and having your D and sts win the game and playing badly in the first half, then being the reason for winninng in the 2nd half.

 

[Ring 6]

CLEARLY you've got an agenda towards Bledsoe, Ray Charles could see it.


Drew got traded away after the season and Brady has become a superstar, so come in off the ledge and go to your happy place, it turned out just swell for all concerned.

I have no agenda at all.
I have my opinion on the matter. You and others disagree.
I feel certain I am correct, I do not think it is even close.
My 'agenda' is pointing out the flaws in the counter argument and advancing the value of my argument.
The fact that you say something to support your position that is factually incorrect enters into my agenda. I have no dislike of Drew Bledsoe, but I won't sit here and pretend he was something he was not for nostalgic reasons.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice straw man, since I never indicated that that wasn't the case. Of course Wes' offense was different from McDaniels'- anyone who has watched the team at any point in their respective tenures can tell you that, even if they know next to nothing about football. That said, for all of their differences, one of the things that those offenses had in common was a strong emphasis on taking care of the ball and consistently making the right decisions.

Cassel was capable in this regard, and Bledsoe wasn't. For all of his other elite talents (and he had a few of them), he wasn't exactly famous for making good decisions with the ball. He was a gunslinger, and while that doesn't make him a bad QB, it makes him a bad fit for both of our OCs' offenses.

There was no straw man. I pointed out a simple reality. The arguments about Cassel and Bledsoe really don't work because of the vastly different systems and teams around the players, and I've said that I'd take Cassel over Bledsoe in the first couple years under BB with Bledsoe over Cassel when the O-line was better. However, since you decided to go down this route, let's point to a few obvious things:

2000: Bledsoe throws 13 INTs with a vastly inferior offense around him than Cassel had.

In fact, let's look to INT%:

Bledsoe in 2000 and then through his Buffalo years:

2.4
2.5
2.5
3.6

Cassel in 2008:

2.1


You can make all sorts of arguments, but the good decisions thing is pretty weak sauce. .3% as a difference with the incredible talent gaps at receiver for the two QBs is certainly with in any rational person's margin of error, since it's basically 1 interception over the course of a season.

Your argument here is right up there with anyone who'd claim that Bledsoe was more elusive in 2000 than Cassel was in 2008 because he was sacked fewer times.

 

[Deus Irae]

No ****. It doesn't kill anything. Brady '01 > Cassel '08, and Brady '01 > Bledsoe '01.

The Argument made:

It appears that to conclude Bledsoe'00/01 > Cassel'08, you must start with the premise Brady'01 = Brady'07.

But if you beleive Brady'07 > Brady'01 you will conclude Cassel'08> Bledsoe'00/01.

Basic Math:

Brady01 = A
Brady07 = B
Cassel08= C
Bledsoe00/01= D

B>A
B>C
A>D

The above equations do NOT mean that C>D, despite the assertion made in the quoted passage.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have no agenda at all.
I have my opinion on the matter. You and others disagree.
I feel certain I am correct, I do not think it is even close.
My 'agenda' is pointing out the flaws in the counter argument and advancing the value of my argument.
The fact that you say something to support your position that is factually incorrect enters into my agenda. I have no dislike of Drew Bledsoe, but I won't sit here and pretend he was something he was not for nostalgic reasons.

Horsefeathers

 

[Ring 6]

Since 2000, Buffalo's been over .500 once. Bledsoe was the QB that season. In that stretch, the team's been 8-8 twice. Bledsoe was the QB for one of those two seasons. The year after Bledsoe left the Bills, Buffalo went from 9-7 to 5-11. Buffalo's followed that up with 3 consecutive 7 win seasons.

In Dallas, Bledsoe took over and the team went from 6-10 to 9-7. The team had Romo waiting in the wings and Parcells pulled Bledsoe in the middle of his second year there. As time has proven, that move was a waste of time. The Cowboys still haven't won a playoff game with Romo, and Parcells has moved on (One does have to note a very successful 13-3 regular season since then, however).

What people here continually overlook is the reality of the game. You can talk about a specific throw, or a specific game, but the reality of the game is greater than all of that.

Some more reality:

Bledsoe inherited a 2 win team in New England. His top running backs in his first two seasons were Leonard Russell and the decaying corpse of Marion Butts. His receiving corps consisted of such immortals as Brisby, Timpson and McMurtry. His formative years had him playing on a team that was so bereft on talent offensively that he learned to always look to his tight end in tough spots, a pattern which he never fully broke as he got older, and which clearly was a weakness when he had lesser tight ends than Ben Coates to throw to.

He had to deal with a front office power struggle that led to Parcells leaving and Carroll becoming coach, and had to watch as the only decent running backs he had moved on to New York and blew out their knees right after Parcells left. Nonetheless, while Parcells was coach and Bledsoe was still growing into the game, he took the team to the Super Bowl. We all know, or should know, the talent issues that hit the team following that.

Tom Brady once led a 9-7 team that didn't make the playoffs. Joe Montana didn't win any titles in Kansas City. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl and Peyton Manning's only won one. Even the greatest QBs in NFL history couldn't win games without a supporting cast. That's the reality of life.

No, Bledsoe was not as good as Brady. However, that just puts Bledsoe in the company of, arguably, every other QB in NFL history. He was better than Cassel, even if Cassel would have been better suited for the Patriots in years 1 & 2 under Belichick. This argument has been, is, and will be, a waste of time, because the Bledsoe Bashers haven't seen reason on the topic in a long, long time. It's true that some Bledsoe supporters have blinders on. That's a very small percentage, though, as Brady following Bledsoe shows Bledsoe in a comparatively harsh light. Unfortunately, the Bledsoe Bashers can't just be content with that. They have to make idiotic comments and fudge reality in order to make Bledsoe look as bad as possible.

It's too bad, too, because Bledsoe deserves more respect than that for helping to lift the team out of the cesspool of the Rust and McPherson days. And, for those of us who've been following the team long enough to remember those disasters laughingly called 'eras', that's definitely something to be thankful for.

I dont disagree with much of what you say. It isnt very different than a lot of my comments on Bledsoe in this thread (although it seems you consider me a Bledose Basher). I think where we separate is you want to apologize for his mediocrity and I believe very good QBs overcome those circmstances. Almost every top NFL QB started with a team that lacked talent. ALL of the top winner QBs did. Montana, Brady, Elway, Bradshaw, Aikman to name a few.
I dont think 'when he was the QB they were medioce and before and after they were worse' is an endorsement of a QB as good.
I also feel no obligation to give Bledsoe a more favorable assessment because we had some bad years before.
Some make it out to be that we were 1-15 for 10 straight years before drafting him, but that isnt true.
We were in the SB 7 years prior in the playoffs 6, a playoff contender for a couple more. We slid to weak in 1989. We were bad in 1990, weak in 1991, and bad in 1992.
That is 3, or at most 4 years, not a long term disaster.
He did bring excitement. He brought a player fans could like.
None of that impacts the assessment of the player.
As I have said Bledsoe from 1994-1998 was a good QB. Had his strengths and weakensses but was a good QB. Starting in 1999 he deteriorated severely and steadily.
This thread was about the Bledsoe of 00-01 not the Bledsoe of the 90s. In the 90s he was the QB of the decade. In the 20 years of 1990-2009 he is aboslutely the 2nd best, well ahead of Cassell, and in fact in franchise history he is also clearly #2.
None of that changes that from the day BB arrived, Bledsoe played poorly.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What a great off season thread.

The creative ability to rationalize myriad contrived excuses for Drew's oft noted poor decision making lives.

 

[Ring 6]

Horsefeathers

No it is a fact.
My agenda for being in this thread is that it is an interesting argument, I am quite certain I am right, and I want to prove it.
I could care less about the legacy of Drew Bledsoe, good or bad. I am in fact HAPPY that the memory of Pats fans is more favorable than negative.
I was a Bledsoe apologist, and probably would have remained one if Bill Belichick and Tom Brady hadn't made it so obvious to me what Bledsoe's shortcomings were, and why when I spent those years thinking Bledsoe was the reason for the limited success and the rest of the team didn't provide enough support, I realized step by step that his flaws were holding back that success almost as much as his strengths were allowing it to happen.
I like Bledsoe, but I despise when people try to revise the past to fit an opinion they wish they could have.

 

[BOSTN BEANER]

How is what you describe any different than any QB in the world playing in front of Brady?
I think we can agree now that Bledsoe didn't call plays, and we have proven that Bledsoe and Brady were in the same place at the same time and spoke to each other, but that hardly constitutes coaching. He spoke to Lawyer Milloy a lot that year, does Milloy get credit for coaching him?

So ur telling me that u dont think that bledsoe talked to him about their position, about the QB position and what hes learned over the years.. u think bledsoe never said a word to help Brady learn faster then a qb trying to learn his position better without a qb that has been a probowl qb, that has lead his team to a superbowl before, and that was pretty well respected throughout the league to talk to.. i just think that u are saying Brady came in with everything he needed and didnt get any help from bledsoe but if that was the case then he wouldnt have been the fourth string qb at one point.. i strongly believe that bledsoe played a decent role in how fast Brady progressed in the 2001 season.. i doubt when brady came off the field and would go talk to drew it was to ask him how his grandmother was doing! haha

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

No ****. It doesn't kill anything. Brady '01 > Cassel '08, and Brady '01 > Bledsoe '01.

Pats07/08 - Brady08 + Cassel = 5 less regulars season wins and AFC champs

Pats00/01 - Brady01 + Bledsoe = 6 less regular season wins and SB champs

So the only way to conclude Bledsoe> Cassel is to conclude Brady01>Brady07

 

[Deus Irae]

I dont disagree with much of what you say. It isnt very different than a lot of my comments on Bledsoe in this thread (although it seems you consider me a Bledose Basher). I think where we separate is you want to apologize for his mediocrity and I believe very good QBs overcome those circmstances. Almost every top NFL QB started with a team that lacked talent. ALL of the top winner QBs did. Montana, Brady, Elway, Bradshaw, Aikman to name a few.

I don't apologize for anything. I analyze it as straight up as possible. The funny thing about your argument here is that it really serves to make the point. How was Dallas in Aikman's first year? How about Indy in year 1 of the Manning era?

One big difference between those QBs and Bledsoe is that the talent around them on offense became much improved.

I dont think 'when he was the QB they were medioce and before and after they were worse' is an endorsement of a QB as good.

I'm sorry, but that's the mark of a good QB. He makes his team better with him than without.

I also feel no obligation to give Bledsoe a more favorable assessment because we had some bad years before.

No, but giving respect instead of bringing in a needless and unhelpful bias would be appropriate.

Some make it out to be that we were 1-15 for 10 straight years before drafting him, but that isnt true.
We were in the SB 7 years prior in the playoffs 6, a playoff contender for a couple more. We slid to weak in 1989. We were bad in 1990, weak in 1991, and bad in 1992.
That is 3, or at most 4 years, not a long term disaster.

That team was in the hopper from the Super Bowl until Bledsoe's rookie season. From the 'fun' in the locker room, to the 'fun' of a 1 win season, it was a disaster. I do find it amusing that you go that far back when I only pointed to the 3 years previous in order to pretend that those years didn't suck the life out of Patriots fans because they had a few more wins. It really highlights the bias.

He did bring excitement. He brought a player fans could like.
None of that impacts the assessment of the player.
As I have said Bledsoe from 1994-1998 was a good QB. Had his strengths and weakensses but was a good QB. Starting in 1999 he deteriorated severely and steadily.

Yes, but you're wrong. Saying it repeatedly, in different languages or while wearing different outfits isn't going to change that.

This thread was about the Bledsoe of 00-01 not the Bledsoe of the 90s. In the 90s he was the QB of the decade. In the 20 years of 1990-2009 he is aboslutely the 2nd best, well ahead of Cassell, and in fact in franchise history he is also clearly #2.

Of course, the funniest part of it all is that I've already pointed out some of the problems with using 2000 as the anchor for the argument with regards to 'decisions' in this comparison, but that just gets ignored.