Bledsoe No Longer A Dallas Cowboy

Bledsoe No Longer A Dallas Cowboy

There are 55 comments on the cbs11tv.com story from Mar 1, 2007, titled Bledsoe No Longer A Dallas Cowboy. In it, cbs11tv.com reports that:

Thursday, the Dallas Cowboys released quarterback Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe, the first overall pick in the 1993 draft by New England, started 193 games in the NFL, including the first six in 2006 before he was ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at cbs11tv.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Bledsoe Fan

Berlin, CT

#41 Mar 7, 2007
We will just have to see what Romo does....I think Bledsoe is better and does not have the big head that Romo has....Bledsoe is just a better quarterback.
Phil

Modesto, CA

#42 Mar 8, 2007
speakingnvowels wrote:
<quoted text>
its not always about stats. it is about what they can accomplish on the field when it really matters. lets look at our modern day era. i think most people would agree when i say that tom brady and peyton manning are the two best qb's currently in the league. if you look at career stats, peyton is by far the best with a qb rating of 94.4 to bradys 88.4, 275 td's to brady's 147, 37,586 yards to bradys 21,564, and a 64 completion percentage to bradys 62. but lets be honest here... manning has had 3 more starting seasons. brady has done what is neccessary when it was needed, and what he has done has earned 3 super bowl rings and still the best standing playoff record of any nfl qb (with the exception of montana, i think).
a quaterback, more than any other position is about leadership, not stats. just because you dont have pro bowl stats does not mean you do not have the capcity to be a great team leader and quaterback. im sure if half the qb's were about to throw nearly 600 passes a season, they could get their stats up there too. that is something bledsoe hasnt had. but he did play three games with a 4 inch pin down his finger, in which 2 of those he led his team to two game winning drives. thats leadership. he did come in, after being relaced by brady in new england, and played his clutch style football to get the patriots to the game that would be their first franchise championship. lets not knock drew and go on saying that romo is better than him until we look beyond the stats.
i will close my rant on stats with this. one of the best statistical qb's of all time NEVER led his team to a super bowl, Dan Marino.
*rock on*
If Bledsoe was viewed as a leader by his team, any of the teams he's played for, he'd still be playing. The fact is, no team he played for was he viewed in this manner.
WeHaveStarPower

Alexandria, VA

#43 Mar 9, 2007
Bledsoe Fan wrote:
We will just have to see what Romo does....I think Bledsoe is better and does not have the big head that Romo has....Bledsoe is just a better quarterback.
What's up with this big head shyt?! Why do all of Bledsoe's butt-boys like to call Tony big headed? Because he's confident? Because he has a swagger and charisma that Drew has never owned? I've never read or heard of anything Romo has said or done that warrants him being labeled arrogant. I bet you guys are the same ones who were crying in their #11 jerseys when Brady took over Bledsoe's job; saying the same things about him. But the ends definitely justified the means, didn't it? Now the jury's still out on Romo, but his performance last season is a source of optimism.
Phil

Modesto, CA

#44 Mar 9, 2007
WeHaveStarPower wrote:
<quoted text>
What's up with this big head shyt?! Why do all of Bledsoe's butt-boys like to call Tony big headed? Because he's confident? Because he has a swagger and charisma that Drew has never owned? I've never read or heard of anything Romo has said or done that warrants him being labeled arrogant. I bet you guys are the same ones who were crying in their #11 jerseys when Brady took over Bledsoe's job; saying the same things about him. But the ends definitely justified the means, didn't it? Now the jury's still out on Romo, but his performance last season is a source of optimism.
Absolutely correct! I have never read anything that came from Romo that indicated he had a big head. From Bledsoe I have, but not Romo. Bledsoe was the one who came in a top draft pick and has done well at first and then gone down hill, with each of his teams. Romo has just bid his time, been patient, and then when he got the opportunity, worked really hard to perform. And it is obvious to the fans that Romo is the one who cares about winning. That is why he is liked. No evidence of a big head, but good confidence. That is a good thing, not somthing to be (legitimately) critized.

Since: Feb 07

San Clemente, Ca.

#45 Mar 9, 2007
Bledsoe is done. He had a good run and may still have SOME good games left in him, but he isn't the future for any team. You certainly wouldn't rebuild around him. He would need to be on a team with a great running back and an even better offensive line.
Bledsoe Fan

Berlin, CT

#46 Mar 17, 2007
I still think Bledsoe is plus in football...He is a great example to kids and a good man...I wish we had more like him...I wish him good luck...
Bledsoe Fan

Berlin, CT

#47 Mar 17, 2007
I do want to comment on Romo...He is not my favorite and I am not so sure he is as good as people think either...Time will tell...He does need to adjust his ego...
RikJ

Grand Rapids, MI

#48 Mar 17, 2007
Phil Myers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well for a Bledsoe fan, that comment is pretty amazing. At this best, about 10 years ago, he didn't have the numbers of Romo. So if Romo sucks with a 95 rating, what does that say for Bledsoe?
QB rating is the most absurd statistic there is.

I'll take 1 for 10 for 10 yards and a first down over 3 for 3 for 9 yards and a punt any day, yet the QB who came up short and had to punt has a higher rating.

Simply using QB rating in any argument invalidates anything else that person has to say in my opinion.
Phil

Modesto, CA

#49 Mar 17, 2007
RikJ wrote:
<quoted text>
QB rating is the most absurd statistic there is.
I'll take 1 for 10 for 10 yards and a first down over 3 for 3 for 9 yards and a punt any day, yet the QB who came up short and had to punt has a higher rating.
Simply using QB rating in any argument invalidates anything else that person has to say in my opinion.
Here's a thought for you. It's the only thing we have. The same augument could be made about any measurement. Flawed or not, it is a yardstick. And just for the record, I have also talked about my own rating, which is a ratio of interceptions to TD's. So unless you have something concrete that is better, you should just be quite.
Phil

Modesto, CA

#50 Mar 18, 2007
RikJ wrote:
<quoted text>
QB rating is the most absurd statistic there is.
I'll take 1 for 10 for 10 yards and a first down over 3 for 3 for 9 yards and a punt any day, yet the QB who came up short and had to punt has a higher rating.
Simply using QB rating in any argument invalidates anything else that person has to say in my opinion.
Although I don't believe this statistic says anything, since the team being played will change this number ... but if you wish to use your line of reasoning ... Romo had about 29% more yards per attempt than Bledsoe. If the QB rating is meaningless in your opinion, how is that statistic working for you?
RikJ

Grand Rapids, MI

#52 Mar 18, 2007
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I don't believe this statistic says anything, since the team being played will change this number ... but if you wish to use your line of reasoning ... Romo had about 29% more yards per attempt than Bledsoe. If the QB rating is meaningless in your opinion, how is that statistic working for you?
Again, meaningless. Let me give you a hypothetical example. There are 2 minutes left and it's 4th and 15. One QB takes the safe statistical option and completes a pass underneath for 9 yards that is meaningless and doesn't advance the chains. The other tries to force in a pass to a receiver 20 yards downfield and it's intercepted.

The end result is the same - both turn the ball over and they lose the game. The first QB has a better rating in every statistical category.

I'd still rather have the second QB who at least took a shot and gave his team a chance.

No QB rating, no matter how you devise it, will ever accurately take game situations into account. Neither will it ever take the quality of the team the QB is playing on into account.

You like to throw out stats comparing Romo and Bledsoe's first years in the league but in doing so you are leaving out a huge factor:

Romo was playing QB for a team built to win now, with a top-5 talent level defense and Pro-Bowl caliber receivers. Bledsoe, in his rookie year, was playing for a team that had just come of a 2-14 season and he was surrounded with all the talent of a high-school football team, including the league's next to last ranked defense.(and yes, the quality of your own team's defense is going to play a huge factor in your QBs opportunity to be effective, put up stats, and lead you to victories).

Trying to compare their rookie year's statistically is asinine to say the least and shows a complete lack of apprehension of football as a team sport.
RikJ

Grand Rapids, MI

#53 Mar 18, 2007
* Comprehension, not "apprehension". Was thinking and typing two different things and when editing my own post before submitting, screwed that up.
Phil

Modesto, CA

#54 Mar 18, 2007
RikJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, meaningless. Let me give you a hypothetical example. There are 2 minutes left and it's 4th and 15. One QB takes the safe statistical option and completes a pass underneath for 9 yards that is meaningless and doesn't advance the chains. The other tries to force in a pass to a receiver 20 yards downfield and it's intercepted.
The end result is the same - both turn the ball over and they lose the game. The first QB has a better rating in every statistical category.
I'd still rather have the second QB who at least took a shot and gave his team a chance.
No QB rating, no matter how you devise it, will ever accurately take game situations into account. Neither will it ever take the quality of the team the QB is playing on into account.
You like to throw out stats comparing Romo and Bledsoe's first years in the league but in doing so you are leaving out a huge factor:
Romo was playing QB for a team built to win now, with a top-5 talent level defense and Pro-Bowl caliber receivers. Bledsoe, in his rookie year, was playing for a team that had just come of a 2-14 season and he was surrounded with all the talent of a high-school football team, including the league's next to last ranked defense.(and yes, the quality of your own team's defense is going to play a huge factor in your QBs opportunity to be effective, put up stats, and lead you to victories).
Trying to compare their rookie year's statistically is asinine to say the least and shows a complete lack of apprehension of football as a team sport.
Apparently, in your eyes, nothing has meaning. If you judge the two quarterbacks, based on last year, there is no comparison - including what you are saying - where Romo did not outperform Bledsoe. To think otherwise, to coin your language, is asinine. If this was not the case, Parcells would have left Bledsoe it ... since he so obviously was biased in this direction. He left him in longer than he should have until he just didn't have any choice.

Here's an idea for you, if average yards per pass means nothing, and wins/losses mean nothing, and number of completions means nothing, and QB rating means nothing, and number of interceptions againt TD's means nothing, I have a suggestion for you. There isn't anything that has meaning to you.

But here's a clue for you. Romo is the starter. Romo was picked to for the Pro Bowl the first year he played, Romo is better on all the statistics I mentioned, and Bledsoe has been benched by three Head Coaches. No team has gone after Bledsoe in the off season.

But hey,... you know you know more than all the coaches and the GM's in the NFL, right?
Phil

Modesto, CA

#55 Mar 18, 2007
RikJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, meaningless. Let me give you a hypothetical example. There are 2 minutes left and it's 4th and 15. One QB takes the safe statistical option and completes a pass underneath for 9 yards that is meaningless and doesn't advance the chains. The other tries to force in a pass to a receiver 20 yards downfield and it's intercepted.
The end result is the same - both turn the ball over and they lose the game. The first QB has a better rating in every statistical category.
I'd still rather have the second QB who at least took a shot and gave his team a chance.
No QB rating, no matter how you devise it, will ever accurately take game situations into account. Neither will it ever take the quality of the team the QB is playing on into account.
You like to throw out stats comparing Romo and Bledsoe's first years in the league but in doing so you are leaving out a huge factor:
Romo was playing QB for a team built to win now, with a top-5 talent level defense and Pro-Bowl caliber receivers. Bledsoe, in his rookie year, was playing for a team that had just come of a 2-14 season and he was surrounded with all the talent of a high-school football team, including the league's next to last ranked defense.(and yes, the quality of your own team's defense is going to play a huge factor in your QBs opportunity to be effective, put up stats, and lead you to victories).
Trying to compare their rookie year's statistically is asinine to say the least and shows a complete lack of apprehension of football as a team sport.
Using your example Romo performed better than Bledsoe this pass year.

What a lot of people are overlooking is that this is about Bledsoe not being a Dallas Cowboy anymore. A lot of Bledsoe fans speak up in his defense.

However, Parcells liked Bledsoe. He kept him in as long as he could. He just couldn't justify it any longer. The man had a good and long career (but not a great one). Even Staubach, Aikman, Montana, etc. had to leave eventually.

And keep in mind that Staubach played backup to Morton. Yet who is remembered more?

Whether Romo continues to improve and get in the upper level for history, only time will tell. I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

But Bledsoe's career has been written. And that is what the number quoting is about. You have to use something as a benchmark. Not to be overlooked is the three teams that replaced him.

GM's and Head Coaches really do know what they are doing.
Liz

Santa Clara, CA

#56 Mar 18, 2007
Romo is 10000x better (and better LOOKING) than Bledsoe thank god they took Bledsoe away it was about time....GO ROMO!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Drew Bledsoe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Belichick on QB: 'Not a doctor, don't do surger... (Sep '16) Sep '16 Dr Phil 1
News As Brady, Gronk know, pre-Super Bowl injury tal... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Laughing Bear Fan 2
News Tony Romo Not A Loser, Choker; So Why Don't His... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Jerry Jones 4
News Dallas Cowboy's Tony Romo: Stand By Me (Apr '13) Apr '13 voss 2
News 25 Odd Facts You Didn't Know About The Cowboys ... (Nov '12) Nov '12 Jerryrigged Jones 3
Drew Bledsoe nude (Sep '12) Sep '12 Juanita 1
News Cowboys' Romo returns to scene of 2006 postseas... (Sep '12) Sep '12 Cowboy fan 1
More from around the web