Carson Palmer Retires

[Ring 6]

You used 98, the year Bledsoe got hurt late in the season, and Cunningham and Chandler and Testaverde had random breakout seasons? Come on now. That was not picking a random year.

Ok if you aren’t going to read what is the point?
I CLEARLY stated I wasn’t comparing them IN 1998. I used 1998 as the mid point of his career to get a list of QBs to compare him to FOR HIS CAREER.

(Also side note: McNair, Brunell, Green, and rookie year Peyton weren’t better than Bledsoe at that point in their careers either. So you’re really reaching with several.)

Again READ. I’m not rating them by 1998 I’m using 1998 to get the list of QBs to compare him to so that it’s out of 30.

So, by that logic I could use the year 1996 randomly. Here it goes:

Favre
Elway
Then Bledsoe.

Bledsoe was the 3rd best QB that year. Was he the overall third best QB in football? No. Basically it is all pretty much cumulative, you can’t just pick random years.

You are joking here right?

 

[Joey007]

You are joking here right?

Name others better in 96. Marino, Young, and Kelly were all either injured aging or both. Again, not the 3rd best NFL QB. But for that particular year, I’d consider him the 3rd best QB. (I don’t consider Matt Ryan anything near a top 3 QB, but had a top 3 QB season during 2016.)

Now, your 1500 attempts stat for THOSE specific years is very misleading for a multitude of reasons.

For one you can’t tell me stats in 1993 weigh the same as 2006. Much changed over that stretch. I’d like to see how many of those were later in that stretch. Also, you are including years Bledsoe was not in his prime (93, 03-06.) Try and cut those stats down to 94-02 (his actual prime) and it becomes more relevant. I’m not gonna argue that Bledsoe was a mediocre QB in a year like 2003 for example.

 

[RDS11]

How does that have anything to do with what I said?
Someone said we don’t win that Sb without Bledsoe. I said if Bledsoe wasn’t there, we would have won with huard. It’s not even a controversial comment since Bledsoe played so poorly.

That's not how you said it :

They would have won if Damon huard went in instead, probably by more.

Which clearly shows your disdain for Bledsoe. We all got it, but to assume that Bledsoe was on par with Huard is clearly not an objective statement.

Bledsoe played awful that day. If you really think belichick chose to play Bledsoe instead of Brady then I understand why this simple concept has created such a stir with you, and I will walk away from the discussion. Have a good night.

That's not what ''I think'', that's a fact :

"You need a couple of quarterbacks in this league," said coach
Bill Belichick, who added Brady could have gone back in the game.
"Sooner or later you might need them and I'm glad we had them
today."

Patriots vs. Steelers - Game Recap - January 27, 2002 - ESPN

 

[Ring 6]

Name others better in 96. Marino, Young, and Kelly were all either injured aging or both. Again, not the 3rd best NFL QB. But for that particular year, I’d consider him the 3rd best QB. (I don’t consider Matt Ryan anything near a top 3 QB, but had a top 3 QB season during 2016.)

Ok you either need to LISTEN or I’m just dine here.

I am not talking about who was best in a given year. Again I am not talking about who was best in a given year.
The only thing the heat had to do with it is to create a list of QBs to compare his life as an nfl QBs too.
So for example if the year I chose included dan Marino’s best year or worst year it is irrelevant it just put Marino in the list to compare.
I’m not going through every year I am taking a representative view of the levels of qb that played in his era, so I picked a mid point and included the ENTIRE CAREERS OF THE PLAYERS ACTIVE THEN VS BLEDSOES ENTIRE CAREER.

Now, your 1500 attempts stat for THOSE specific years is very misleading for a multitude of reasons.

For one you can’t tell me stats in 1993 weigh the same as 2006.

Jesus, it’s his career.

Much changed over that stretch. I’d like to see how many of those were later in that stretch. Also, you are including years Bledsoe was not in his prime (93, 03-06.) Try and cut those stats down to 94-02 (his actual prime) and it becomes more relevant. I’m not gonna argue that Bledsoe was a mediocre QB in a year like 2003 for example.

I used his career. That’s what we are talking about. We are talking about his career as a QB in total. Why would you cherry pick?

So in comparing Bledsoe to the other QBs who played during his career, using about at least 5 seasons as a starter Bledsoe is below the middle in almost every category. How is that hard to get?

 

[Ring 6]

That's not how you said it :


Which clearly shows your disdain for Bledsoe. We all got it, but to assume that Bledsoe was on par with Huard is clearly not an objective statement.

No that is exactly how I said it and I added “probably by more” because it’s hard to believe huard would have played as poorly.

I’m sorry if you post to show disdain, I don’t. I commented on what happened that day and as I said it’s not even controversial.

Are you telling me you think Bledsoe played well that day? That we wouldn’t have won with huard?

That's not what ''I think'', that's a fact :

Patriots vs. Steelers - Game Recap - January 27, 2002 - ESPN

Could have gone in the game and was able to play effectively are 2 very different things. Brady was a ? mark for the Sb.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

How do we not win the SB in 2001 without him???

I don’t know if we hold off Pittsburgh if he wasn’t there to steady the ship after brady went out. Granted special teams ruled the day with 14 pts but I think drew coming in and getting that touchdown to patten was huge before half.

 

[Joey007]

Ok you either need to LISTEN or I’m just dine here.

I am not talking about who was best in a given year. Again I am not talking about who was best in a given year.
The only thing the heat had to do with it is to create a list of QBs to compare his life as an nfl QBs too.
So for example if the year I chose included dan Marino’s best year or worst year it is irrelevant it just put Marino in the list to compare.
I’m not going through every year I am taking a representative view of the levels of qb that played in his era, so I picked a mid point and included the ENTIRE CAREERS OF THE PLAYERS ACTIVE THEN VS BLEDSOES ENTIRE CAREER.


Jesus, it’s his career.


I used his career. That’s what we are talking about. We are talking about his career as a QB in total. Why would you cherry pick?

So in comparing Bledsoe to the other QBs who played during his career, using about at least 5 seasons as a starter Bledsoe is below the middle in almost every category. How is that hard to get?

The guy declined once he hit his 30’s, there’s no denying that. This all started when you said he was mediocre. You’re saying this due to what he did collaboratively over his career, trying to weigh years later in his career when he was out of his prime the same way you weigh years he was in his prime.

Bottom line: he had 4-5 pro bowl level seasons, a couple years at his peak he played top 5 level, others of those at least in the top 10.

He had a couple years that I’d consider in between somewhere. He was still above average, but not pro bowl level by any means.

The other remaining years he was mostly very average, with one or two where he was below average.

Average that all out if you feel necessary, and you’re looking at an 8-10th rated QB as Bledsoe’s QB ranking average over the years. Basically meaning he was good. Not great, but definitely above average.

We can say “his YPA was too low compared to other over these years” all day, but there’s so many variables to each and every players stats that there’s really no point in making those comparisons.

If you think I’m not reading again, and if you’re “dine” with this conversation then fair enough.

 

[Ring 6]

Name others better in 96. Marino, Young, and Kelly were all either injured aging or both. Again, not the 3rd best NFL QB. But for that particular year, I’d consider him the 3rd best QB. (I don’t consider Matt Ryan anything near a top 3 QB, but had a top 3 QB season during 2016.)

Now, your 1500 attempts stat for THOSE specific years is very misleading for a multitude of reasons.

For one you can’t tell me stats in 1993 weigh the same as 2006. Much changed over that stretch. I’d like to see how many of those were later in that stretch. Also, you are including years Bledsoe was not in his prime (93, 03-06.) Try and cut those stats down to 94-02 (his actual prime) and it becomes more relevant. I’m not gonna argue that Bledsoe was a mediocre QB in a year like 2003 for example.

But what the hell if you think Bledsoe’s career is an unfair gauge I’ll break it in half.

I’ll keep it at 30 most las attempts

1993-1999 our is 30 Bledsoe ranked
24 in passer rating
12 in win %
23 in comp %
24 in ypa
4 in sacks
17 in TD %
17 in int %

2000-2006
24 Win %
21 passer rating
21 comp %
1 sacks
22 td%
17 int %

So if you think he had different peers early compared to late in his career he still shakes out very similarly in comparison.

 

[Ring 6]

I don’t know if we hold off Pittsburgh if he wasn’t there to steady the ship after brady went out. Granted special teams ruled the day with 14 pts but I think drew coming in and getting that touchdown to patten was huge before half.

Seriously? Do you mean if we had to play with no Qb? If your standard is throwing 1 pass I think a lot of guys could do that. How about all the poor ones he threw?

 

[TB_Helmet]

And another loser bites the dust! **** that piece of **** *******! Don't let the door hit you on the way out *******!

I don't think I've ever seen anyone have as much hate for Carson Palmer as in your post.

 

[Wheelman]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone have as much hate for Carson Palmer as in your post.

Dude's a ****ing scumbag!

 

[Ring 6]

The guy declined once he hit his 30’s, there’s no denying that. This all started when you said he was mediocre. You’re saying this due to what he did collaboratively over his career, trying to weigh years later in his career when he was out of his prime the same way you weigh years he was in his prime.

I included his entire career in assessing him. And to make you happy I just posted his comparison to the other QBs broken down by splitting his career in half. And he didn’t fare much better from 21-27 than 28-34.

Bottom line: he had 4-5 pro bowl level seasons, a couple years at his peak he played top 5 level, others of those at least in the top 10.

Based on what? You say so?
He accumulated yards because he threw more than any qb. All per pass measurable were below average.

He had a couple years that I’d consider in between somewhere. He was still above average, but not pro bowl level by any means.

What does that even mean. What years are you talking about?

The other remaining years he was mostly very average, with one or two where he was below average.

The numbers say he was average over his entire career not in a few years.

Average that all out if you feel necessary, and you’re looking at an 8-10th rated QB as Bledsoe’s QB ranking average over the years. Basically meaning he was good. Not great, but definitely above average.

No I gave you his rankings and they are almost all below middle of the pack. Numbers don’t lie.

We can say “his YPA was too low compared to other over these years” all day, but there’s so many variables to each and every players stats that there’s really no point in making those comparisons.

There is no point in making comparison of what he did on the field compared to his peers, but it’s better to arbitrarily throw out “pro bowl caliber” “almost pro bowl” “average” etc euphemisms that don’t match up with what he actually did on the field?
So damn the facts, you have a hawt taek?

If you think I’m not reading again, and if you’re “dine” with this conversation then fair enough.

You clearly werent reading because you took my posts and the reference to other QBs to mean something totally untelated to what I CLEARLY defined them as.

And thanks typo police, that added a lot to the discussion

 

[Ring 6]

Dude's a ****ing scumbag!

Wheelman you seem to be on a rage-a-thon

 

[RDS11]

No that is exactly how I said it and I added “probably by more” because it’s hard to believe huard would have played as poorly.

Bledsoe had a brain fart when he tried to throw a ball away while he was being sacked, but he also had a nice 3rd down pass to Brown that basically won the game at the end of the 4th quarter.

I’m sorry if you post to show disdain, I don’t.

I don't think I need to elaborate here, you are a well known poster and all your posts on Bledsoe are all heading the same way.

Are you telling me you think Bledsoe played well that day? That we wouldn’t have won with huard?

Never said that, and more importantly, by all accounts Bledsoe was not graded favorably by the coaching staff after that game.

Could have gone in the game and was able to play effectively are 2 very different things. Brady was a ? mark for the Sb.

Well, on that day Belichick still decided to go with Bledsoe for the 2nd half over an injured Tom Brady. In hindsight, Belichick might have decided differently because Brady would probably have played better than Bledsoe did, but then again, Bledsoe did enough for the Pats to win.

These kind of comments also are showing how spoiled, or entitled, some fans are. A guy comes off the bench, and do enough to get the team to the Super Bowl (btw, Bledsoe threw as many TDs as Brady did during the 2001 playoffs). But now, 16 years later and with the benefit of looking back at 7 Super Bowls appearances and 5 wins, some are trying to re-write history and assume that anybody could have done that. This kind of logic takes away from what Brady did (because if anybody else can do it, then it wasn't a great feat by Brady). I don't see the point of thrashing a player based on a game that lead to the Pats' 1st Super Bowl win.

So, to get back to your point above, no, I'm not ready to say that Huard would have won the game. Might have done it, but again I'll defer to Belichick who thought that Bledsoe was a better option than Huard at the time.

Bledsoe played awful that day. If you really think belichick chose to play Bledsoe instead of Brady then I understand why this simple concept has created such a stir with you, and I will walk away from the discussion. Have a good night.

Still can't let others have the last word Andy ?

 

[Patriot Missile]

Never seemed to reach his projected potential after that acl injury vs Pittsburgh in that playoff game. He had some good seasons but overall he was up and down imo.

 

[Ring 6]

Bledsoe had a brain fart when he tried to throw a ball away while he was being sacked, but he also had a nice 3rd down pass to Brown that basically won the game at the end of the 4th quarter.

He was. 10-21-102

I don't think I need to elaborate here, you are a well known poster and all your posts on Bledsoe are all heading the same way.

You act as if being consistent is a bad thing. Bledsoe is what he is.

Never said that, and more importantly, by all accounts Bledsoe was not graded favorably by the coaching staff after that game.

Of course he wasn’t. He played horribly.

Well, on that day Belichick still decided to go with Bledsoe for the 2nd half over an injured Tom Brady.

Because Brady was injured.

In hindsight, Belichick might have decided differently because Brady would probably have played better than Bledsoe did, but then again, Bledsoe did enough for the Pats to win.

Not really. The defense and special teams did.

These kind of comments also are showing how spoiled, or entitled, some fans are. A guy comes off the bench, and do enough to get the team to the Super Bowl (btw, Bledsoe threw as many TDs as Brady did during the 2001 playoffs). But now, 16 years later and with the benefit of looking back at 7 Super Bowls appearances and 5 wins, some are trying to re-write history and assume that anybody could have done that.

It was a viola at the time. I said it at the time. We were lucky Bledsoe didn’t have the game away and that we didn’t need anything from him to win.

This kind of logic takes away from what Brady did (because if anybody else can do it, then it wasn't a great feat by Brady). I don't see the point of thrashing a player based on a game that lead to the Pats' 1st Super Bowl win.

Anyone could okay as well (poorly) as Bledsoe did that day. That has nothing to do with Brady.

So, to get back to your point above, no, I'm not ready to say that Huard would have won the game. Might have done it, but again I'll defer to Belichick who thought that Bledsoe was a better option than Huard at the time.

That isn’t defering to belichick that’s avoiding the obvious.

Still can't let others have the last word Andy ?

That was literally giving you the last word but you chose not to take it.

 

[Joey007]

Wheelman you seem to be on a rage-a-thon

As are you.

Look those specific stats you showed me don’t look pretty, but you realize you made my point I made initially at the very beginning? What is he point of this argument! You’re that determined to show me Bledsoe sucks by digging into these very specific detailed stats?

You basically have proved my point that you try to win arguments in any way possible, even when it’s over pretty irrelevant discussions.

I watched the guy play. Some of what you say is true, but I watched some great clutch moments out of the guy over the years that I wouldn’t see from a mediocre QB. The dude was good.

And hey, if numbers never lie, you must think Rodgers is better than Brady due to his higher career passer rating and TD INT Ratio.

Stats are for losers, Andy.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Can't say that I give a **** one way or the other.

 

[RDS11]

That was literally giving you the last word but you chose not to take it.

You are using 'literally' wrong. Literally giving me the last word would mean not replying to my post....

These one liners are very telling...not much thought put into them, just because it's more important for you to 'literally' have the last word than substance.

Of course he wasn’t. He played horribly.

Says who ? You ? Even the Past coaching staff wasn't as harsh, according to 'Patriots Reign' by Holley.

Anyone could okay as well (poorly) as Bledsoe did that day. That has nothing to do with Brady.

Bledsoe QB rating that day : 77.9
Brady QB rating that day : 84.3
not a huge difference... and given that you said :

Numbers don’t lie

please explain to me how Bledsoe was so horrible that day given that he had a respectable rating, a rating not much lower than Brady by the way, and no turnovers ?

Brady has played in 10 other AFC Championship games, and he had a rating below 77 five times. These games are hard, what Bledsoe did that day was good enough to get the Pats to the Super Bowl. There is plenty other stuff you can use to justify your mediocre assessment of his career. Getting his team to the Super Bowl is just not of these.

That isn’t defering to belichick that’s avoiding the obvious.

And what would be 'the obvious' ? That Huard was better than Bledsoe ?!?

 

[PatsBoy12]

Well, anyone who manages to keep a starting QB job in the NFL for 15 years has had a good career. Otherwise you get relegated to backup QB role pretty fast.

My post in no way indicates he didn't have a "good" career.