Bledsoe or Cassel

[Ring 6]

You've been claiming for the last 5 pages that you believe you're right. That your opinion is the correct one. You were doing a pretty good job of proving your case, till you posted this completely stupid smart azz comment. Most people will tend to ignore someones posts, no matter how good they may be, after reading something this stupid. I know i've lost respect for your opinion, not that I think you care. Also, be sure not to rag on someones spelling, and then proceed to misspell words yourself (first sentence)

Thanks, sarcasm policeman.

 

[Patjew]

Ok then, it was a joke.

An attempt at humor on your part.

Got it.

Yes, one of my famous weak attempts.

 

[Ring 6]

My gut tells me if the question was "Who is the backup to Brady on the ALL TIME Patriots team?", the answer for most would be Cassel, so who's kidding who here.

Cant speak for 'most' but Ive already answer this as Bledsoe.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your selectively responding to only posts that help you propogate your incorrect position is classic.
You accused me of having an agenda, i asked you to find another thread EVER where I have criticized Bledsoe. You know you can't, you know that proves I have no agenda, you hide from the post. For a guy who posts with as much arrogance as you do, you certainly argue like a coward.

What the hell are you talking about? I've responded to multiple posts, and it's accomplished nothing. Cripes, you made a post saying that you agreed with pretty much everything I'd said, and then proceeded to post more negative stuff about Bledsoe. You laid your bias out for the world to see there.

Mo follows that nonsense up with the crazy assertion that I'm all about the 'gunslingers' and megatalents when nothing could be further from the truth. The thread was about a pretty simple question, albeit one that really can't be answered fairly. Rather than just stay on that question, the Bledsoe bashers decided to take yet another opportunity to go at the guy. It's abundantly clear that the agenda is more important than the facts for the Bledsoe bashers, so why bother continuing, especially since I stated that I'd rather have Cassel if the o-line is the 2000-2001 o-line rather than the later o-lines?

Oh, by the way....

I disagree with the part about him helping Bradys development. While publicly he appeared to handle it well, weve learned over the years that behind the scenes he wasnt the good teammate he was portayed as.
I liked Bledsoe when he was the QB, but we would never have gotten anywhere near where we did if he stayed the starter. I've soured on him since then, with his attitude here before leaving, in Buffalo and in Dallas. He comes off as a guy who thinks "Im Drew Bledsoe, you owe me something".

I used to argue with those that said he was overrated when he was here, but it turns out I was wrong. In the right circumstances,at the right point in his carreer he was good and elevated an otherwise weak team but starting at about mid-1998, he has never been close to what he was before that.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/45895-when-bledsoe-gets-cut.html#post256241

Still want to argue that there's not a bias? You feel free to do so. I look at your stuff and find one to be quite apparent.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Thanks, sarcasm policeman.

As you pointed out in a previous post, this is a message board. It's not always easy to tell when someone is using sarcasm, or just joking around. Try using an emoticon (smiley)

 

[Ring 6]

What the hell are you talking about? I've responded to multiple posts, and it's accomplished nothing. Cripes, you made a post saying that you agreed with pretty much everything I'd said, and then proceeded to post more negative stuff about Bledsoe. You laid your bias out for the world to see there.

Mo follows that nonsense up with the crazy assertion that I'm all about the 'gunslingers' and megatalents when nothing could be further from the truth. The thread was about a pretty simple question, albeit one that really can't be answered fairly. Rather than just stay on that question, the Bledsoe bashers decided to take yet another opportunity to go at the guy. It's abundantly clear that the agenda is more important than the facts for the Bledsoe bashers, so why bother continuing, especially since I stated that I'd rather have Cassel if the o-line is the 2000-2001 o-line rather than the later o-lines?

Oh, by the way....



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/45895-when-bledsoe-gets-cut.html#post256241

Still want to argue that there's not a bias? You feel free to do so. I look at your stuff and find one to be quite apparent.

Let me spell it out.
1) you claim i have an agenda
2) i say prove that by finding any other thread ever that i criticized Bledsoe. If you cannot there cannot be an agenda
3) You ignore.

I did agree with a lot of what you said in that post, and pointed out that which i did not agree. duh.

How does what Mo says have anything to do with me?

How does me liking Bledose then becoming neutral as time went on indicate bias.

I am the most unbaised poster alive on this topic. YOU admit to temper your opinion because he 'pulled the franchise out of hell' or something to that effect.
I am judging him 100% on how he played. (I do not judge him on handling his benching poorly, but do argue against calling that a positive) Look back. I have made my entire argument based upon his play.
I have given him a lot of credit for what he did in the early and middle part of his time here.
But to say his play didn't decline from 1998-2001 is ignorant and can only come with the bias that you bring, this nostalgic wish to put those poor years in a good light because of the years that preceeded it.
Please, find something that I have said that indicates my opinion is biased. My response that I liked him early and became neutral later indicate ABSENCE OF BIAS.

Again, I will challenge you to find any thread ever where I have criticized Bledsoe. I havent even criticized him this one, just gave an HONEST assessment of him that isn't tainted by fond memories

 

[Ring 6]

As you pointed out in a previous post, this is a message board. It's not always easy to tell when someone is using sarcasm, or just joking around. Try using an emoticon (smiley)

Yeah, i rarely use those. I suck at the technical part of posting, still cant multi-quote even if i try.
I thought it was obvious that it was a sarcastic whining that the discussion was getting too personal.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Yeah, i rarely use those. I suck at the technical part of posting, still cant multi-quote even if i try.
I thought it was obvious that it was a sarcastic whining that the discussion was getting too personal.

I can't multi post either. Yes, this thread got way too personal 20 pages ago. The funny thing is, for the most part, everyone seems to feel the same way. Drew had his moment, and did some things for the franchise. Never improved, and after Tuna left, it just didnt get better. I do find it funny how the original thread question started so many arguments. As a Bledsoe fan, even i voted for Cassel.

Oh well, off to have Italian (food that is)

 

[BradyFTW!]

Let me spell it out.
1) you claim i have an agenda
2) i say prove that by finding any other thread ever that i criticized Bledsoe. If you cannot there cannot be an agenda
3) You ignore.

I did agree with a lot of what you said in that post, and pointed out that which i did not agree. duh.

How does what Mo says have anything to do with me?

How does me liking Bledose then becoming neutral as time went on indicate bias.

I am the most unbaised poster alive on this topic. YOU admit to temper your opinion because he 'pulled the franchise out of hell' or something to that effect.
I am judging him 100% on how he played. (I do not judge him on handling his benching poorly, but do argue against calling that a positive) Look back. I have made my entire argument based upon his play.
I have given him a lot of credit for what he did in the early and middle part of his time here.
But to say his play didn't decline from 1998-2001 is ignorant and can only come with the bias that you bring, this nostalgic wish to put those poor years in a good light because of the years that preceeded it.
Please, find something that I have said that indicates my opinion is biased. My response that I liked him early and became neutral later indicate ABSENCE OF BIAS.

Again, I will challenge you to find any thread ever where I have criticized Bledsoe. I havent even criticized him this one, just gave an HONEST assessment of him that isn't tainted by fond memories

On one hand, Deus did get you. You said you'd never criticized Bledsoe in the past, he pointed out where you had. On the other hand, the fact that it required going back to 2006 doesn't do much to show that you have the agenda that he's claiming.

Could just as easily and reasonably say that Deus has a bias and an agenda against overrated gunslingers who don't read defenses well and throw too many interceptions, as evidenced by his irrational defenses of both Bledsoe and Favre. << Not necessarily a position that I'd take, but Deus has lowered the standard of 'proof' by claiming that you have an anti-Bledsoe bias enough that I can easily say, with the same level of evidence and credibility, that he has a 'pro-gunslinger' bias that renders him subjective and unable to contribute meaningfully to this thread

 

[Double G]

Are you that sensitive that you cant laugh at yourself when you make a mistake? I knew it was a typo, and i have many in every post. You dont find it ironic? Lighten up, its only a message board, Im not Ochocinco.

All those things about Drew are fine. Im not taking any away. I am talking specifically about 2000-01

Nope, it wasn't a typo, it was a spelling mistake on my part.

You learn something new everyday.

I learned Enstein is spelled Einstein.

Understood about 2000-01, he was on the back nine here in New England.

But I still think what he did in the 2001 AFCCG was pretty good for a guy who had been sitting on his backside for 16 weeks.

And again, I was wrong as I did not understand the question that started all of this................

 

[Double G]

Yes, one of my famous weak attempts.

No problem; I find your humor to be very good, not weak to be honest.

 

[TruthSeeker]

It's abundantly clear that you have no intention of actually putting aside your bias, so this will do nothing but go in circles.

There does seem to be a theme among your posts that someone who sees something differently than you (usually) has a bias.

Actually, I think a number of the posters who have different views than you have shared a lot of good reasons for their thinking in this thread.

But I expect that's just my bias kicking in.

 

[Ring 6]

On one hand, Deus did get you. You said you'd never criticized Bledsoe in the past, he pointed out where you had. On the other hand, the fact that it required going back to 2006 doesn't do much to show that you have the agenda that he's claiming.

Could just as easily and reasonably say that Deus has a bias and an agenda against overrated gunslingers who don't read defenses well and throw too many interceptions, as evidenced by his irrational defenses of both Bledsoe and Favre. << Not necessarily a position that I'd take, but Deus has lowered the standard of 'proof' by claiming that you have an anti-Bledsoe bias enough that I can easily say, with the same level of evidence and credibility, that he has a 'pro-gunslinger' bias that renders him subjective and unable to contribute meaningfully to this thread

but that isnt even critical, its one OBJECTIVE post in at least 2 1/2 years.

 

[Ring 6]

Nope, it wasn't a typo, it was a spelling mistake on my part.

You learn something new everyday.

I learned Enstein is spelled Einstein.

Understood about 2000-01, he was on the back nine here in New England.

But I still think what he did in the 2001 AFCCG was pretty good for a guy who had been sitting on his backside for 16 weeks.

And again, I was wrong as I did not understand the question that started all of this................

If you read through what i have posted I have complemented Drew quite a bit pre-1999

 

[Deus Irae]

There does seem to be a theme among your posts that someone who sees something differently than you (usually) has a bias.

Actually, I think a number of the posters who have different views than you have shared a lot of good reasons for their thinking in this thread.

But I expect that's just my bias kicking in.

I have stated more than once that, given the 2000-2001 offensive line, I'd take Cassel as the QB. My issue here has nothing to do with which QB someone would choose, as legitimate arguments can be made for either choice, and by making it really only Bledsoe of 2000 vs. only Cassel of 2008, it's all but impossible to get a fair reading of the two players because the teams surrounding them were so different.

 

[Ring 6]

There does seem to be a theme among your posts that someone who sees something differently than you (usually) has a bias.

Actually, I think a number of the posters who have different views than you have shared a lot of good reasons for their thinking in this thread.

But I expect that's just my bias kicking in.

I'm not sure I even know what this bias i am supposed to have is? I think my bias is I disagree with Dues, so I am biased against him being right?????

 

[Ring 6]

I have stated more than once that, given the 2000-2001 offensive line, I'd take Cassel as the QB. My issue here has nothing to do with which QB someone would choose, as legitimate arguments can be made for either choice, and by making it really only Bledsoe of 2000 vs. only Cassel of 2008, it's all but impossible to get a fair reading of the two players because the teams surrounding them were so different.

So you are saying you find yourself incapable of answering the question, yet have made 50 posts about it?

 

[Deus Irae]

On one hand, Deus did get you. You said you'd never criticized Bledsoe in the past, he pointed out where you had. On the other hand, the fact that it required going back to 2006 doesn't do much to show that you have the agenda that he's claiming.

Actually, I did a quick search and just posted the first one I read. It had nothing to do with being required to go back to any certain time. It had to do with responding to AndyJohnson's challenge.

Could just as easily and reasonably say that Deus has a bias and an agenda against overrated gunslingers who don't read defenses well and throw too many interceptions, as evidenced by his irrational defenses of both Bledsoe and Favre. << Not necessarily a position that I'd take, but Deus has lowered the standard of 'proof' by claiming that you have an anti-Bledsoe bias enough that I can easily say, with the same level of evidence and credibility, that he has a 'pro-gunslinger' bias that renders him subjective and unable to contribute meaningfully to this thread

For the record, the supposed bias would be for, not against, those gunslingers, if I'm defending them. The rest of your paragraph just doesn't make sense.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, I did a quick search and just posted the first one I read. It had nothing to do with being required to go back to any certain time. It had to do with responding to AndyJohnson's challenge.



For the record, the supposed bias would be for, not against, those gunslingers, if I'm defending them. The rest of your paragraph just doesn't make sense.

But you dint answer the challenge. One innoucous post that isnt even negative in 2 1/2 years, with NO followup post in that thread isn't even in the ballpark of proving the position you have made up.
Lets get this straight. I have said I have no ill will, no agenda, no bias against Drew Bledsoe.
You have called me a liar.
You better come to the table with more than that or admit you are wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you are saying you find yourself incapable of answering the question, yet have made 50 posts about it?

Feel free to go back and read what I've posted. Either that or you could just make some more false claims that can be disproven. Whatever works for you. Either way, you have yourself a great evening. I'll go look into things that don't have Patriots fans bashing the second best QB in team history for no real reason.