Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 77
  1. #31
    Skynyrd's Avatar
    Skynyrd is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lewisberry, PA
    Age
    52
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    No. If we still had that QB, we wouldn't have been able to go out and get some of the free agents required to replace injured players because of that certain person's salary cap hit for 2004. Rather than the four-something million that he's counting for on this year's cap, we would have been feeling over double that. Imagine where we'd be then.
    Nick, Look at where we're at NOW. Maybe this sounds silly, but since Warner's already going to cost nearly $7 million ($6,680,000) against next year's cap, wouldn't it have been nice to have him now, especially these past two games? I'm not sure about the Arizona game but I'm pretty damn sure we would've beat Carolina with Warner in there instead of Chandler's 6 INT's. We'd be at least 7-7, possible 8-6, who knows? Also, in one of your later posts, you mention Antuan Edwards as our future at free safety. Ain't going to happen Nick. He's an unrestricted free agent who we're not going to be able to afford, mainly because we still owe Kurt all that previously mentioned "dead money". I know hindsights 20/20, but IMO when the decision was made to cut Warner we should've taken the entire salary cap hit this year. Yeah, it would've been tough and yes, other players would've have to been cut, but at least we'd have that "dead money" off the books and would be able to go after guys like Edwards. Peace


  2. #32
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Does anyone think that Warner would have simply sat on the bench all year with a smile on his face?


    Why are we still talking about this?

  3. #33
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Quote Originally Posted by rebel13
    Imagine where we'd be if the fat retard was jettisoned instead of KW.
    While you're welcome to your opinion, calling someone a "fat retard" is immature and inexcusable. There's no need for that kind of stuff.


    Quote Originally Posted by theodus69
    We really got a bundle on that, didn't we! Whats this teams record......Say no more!
    I'm really going to hope that you're not blaming this team's record on Bulger. But to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised by it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skynyrd
    Nick, Look at where we're at NOW. Maybe this sounds silly, but since Warner's already going to cost nearly $7 million ($6,680,000) against next year's cap, wouldn't it have been nice to have him now, especially these past two games? I'm not sure about the Arizona game but I'm pretty damn sure we would've beat Carolina with Warner in there instead of Chandler's 6 INT's. We'd be at least 7-7, possible 8-6, who knows? Also, in one of your later posts, you mention Antuan Edwards as our future at free safety. Ain't going to happen Nick. He's an unrestricted free agent who we're not going to be able to afford, mainly because we still owe Kurt all that previously mentioned "dead money". I know hindsights 20/20, but IMO when the decision was made to cut Warner we should've taken the entire salary cap hit this year. Yeah, it would've been tough and yes, other players would've have to been cut, but at least we'd have that "dead money" off the books and would be able to go after guys like Edwards. Peace
    First, we wouldn't have been able to go after Edwards, in my opinion, because someone would have snatched him up before we had the chance. By taking the brunt of Warner's dead money hit, we would have been virtually crippled this season. It would have been a lot worse than our current 6-8.

    It would have been nice to have Warner as a back-up these past two games, but econimically, there's little chance of how it would have happened, considering the other moves we wouldn't have been able to make to fix other areas. You just can't devote that kind of money to a back-up quarterback who doesn't think he's a back-up quarterback.


    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    Does anyone think that Warner would have simply sat on the bench all year with a smile on his face?

    Why are we still talking about this?
    Exactly. Warner has no intention of being a back-up. We've already seen reports out of New York that have said that he'll retire if he can't find a team this offseason that will give him a chance at starting. Why then do people think he would have remained here as a back-up?
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #34
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    I don't understand how so much of the team's salary cap problems can be blamed on one contract. Are the Rams the only team in the league with dead money? Did the team not realize the ramifications of their actions when they set the ball in motion? If cutting him was going to cause the team to be so handcuffed that they couldn't bring in any quality free-agents does it seem prudent to follow that course of action? Instead of handling the situation in a way that resulted in the Rams having quality depth at the qb position(one way or the other) as well as cap relief what have we got? Could any of this been prevented? Who might have made better decisions?

  5. #35
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    Are the Rams the only team in the league with dead money?
    No, the Whiners have a good bit as well. How are they doing this season?


    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    If cutting him was going to cause the team to be so handcuffed that they couldn't bring in any quality free-agents does it seem prudent to follow that course of action? Instead of handling the situation in a way that resulted in the Rams having quality depth at the qb position(one way or the other) as well as cap relief what have we got? Could any of this been prevented? Who might have made better decisions?
    The implication that the Rams would have gotten cap relief by retaining Warner is vastly unproven and merely a theory. The bottom line is they received more relief by cutting him than they would have had if he was still under his current contract and on the team. The latter sounds like the lesser of two evils in terms of handcuffing the team.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  6. #36
    Rams43 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Age
    60
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    In ref. to Warner, keep in mind, that was another smart decision by Mike Martz. Had he let Warner go in the first place(going into the 03 season), there wouldn't be any money to pay out, plus, it would've given Warner a better chance at starting with another team. How many here think Warner would've taken the money, had he known he'd spend the whole season on the sideline?

  7. #37
    atcchris's Avatar
    atcchris is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Age
    51
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    In ref. to Warner, keep in mind, that was another smart decision by Mike Martz. Had he let Warner go in the first place(going into the 03 season), there wouldn't be any money to pay out, plus, it would've given Warner a better chance at starting with another team. How many here think Warner would've taken the money, had he known he'd spend the whole season on the sideline?
    I probably would have more respect for Martz' integrity, while not changing my opinion about his pride and obstinance, had Martz released Warner prior to 2003.

    Martz not only screwed up the Rams by the way he treated Warner, he also made sure that Warner wasted at least 2 years of prime time at QB.

    Thanks, Mike. You sure know how to hurt a guy.

  8. #38
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    The implication that the Rams would have gotten cap relief by retaining Warner is vastly unproven and merely a theory.
    It doesn't seem that difficult to me. The Rams chose to pay two starting qb's when the decided to let Warner go. They have to pay Warner's cap hit as well as Bulger's new contract. Both of which they knew before they made the decision. In essence, they're paying for 2 starting qb's when you factor in the contracts given to Martin and Chandler.

    I find it very unlikely that the Rams would be in worse shape than they are now had they kept Warner and gotten rid of Bulger. Don't get me wrong, I've completely swung around to the theory that getting rid of Warner was the best thing...for Warner. Had he stayed he would be receiving the support of Martz (see Lendeta and Chandler) as well as the lack of protection on the field.
    No, the Whiners have a good bit as well. How are they doing this season?
    Okay, so it's the cap, Chandler, Warner, Lendetta, injuries and Turley. My mistake, the universe is uniquelly against the Rams and Martz. How many times do you keep hitting your thumb with a hammer before you realize it's not the hammer's fault?

  9. #39
    atcchris's Avatar
    atcchris is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Age
    51
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    moklerman

    Once more, agree on all.

    Good points.

  10. #40
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I find it very unlikely that the Rams would be in worse shape than they are now had they kept Warner and gotten rid of Bulger.
    I would suggest looking into the cap numbers, Mok, because while you find it very unlikely, if you looked at the actual numbers, it is in fact very likely and true.

    Bulger counted for $1.824 million to the team this year, because his new 4-year contract was basically a three-year extension of his RFA offer sheet. Meanwhile, Warner would have counted for $9,467,457 against the cap had he stayed, but as of now, he counts for only $4,611,857 in dead money.

    So, do the math. The Rams would have nine and a half million on the books with Warner and no Bulger, but currently have $6.435 million with Bulger and no Warner. Even the minimal contracts signed by Chandler and Martin wouldn't be enough to bring the latter near the price tag had Warner remained. Plus, the Rams had Chandler under contract before Warner was released. Would they have released him if Bulger left, or keep him as the back-up? The latter is the more likely, so you can assume that the cap numbers from Chandler would affect both figures, not just Bulger's.

    Not to be rude or anything, but perhaps it would be wise to look at the actual numbers before determining what's likely or unlikely. I would the actual contract numbers would give you a more realistic idea about what would or could be than anything else.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  11. #41
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Not to be rude or anything, but perhaps it would be wise to look at the actual numbers before determining what's likely or unlikely. I would the actual contract numbers would give you a more realistic idea about what would or could be than anything else.
    It's not rude at all, just another example of you having tunnel vision.

    Guarentee me that Warner would not have restructured his contract. Let's see, he's already done it for the team (more than once I think), not to mention he's playing for less than $9 million this year in New York. Add to that the type of character that he's exhibited for the past 6 years as a pro.

    So, while the final cap numbers don't add up to the Rams spending less I find it hard to believe that you're trying to convince me that you could use numbers now and assure me they would be the same if other things had been different.

  12. #42
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    Guarentee me that Warner would not have restructured his contract.
    Try to guarantee he would.

    Again, I'm using the facts, you're using hypotheticals. Maybe I'm alone here, but I'll stick by the facts when trying to make a case about something, not "What if?" situations.

    The bottom line is as the contracts were, the Rams saved more money and found more cap relief by cutting Warner. Arguing what was likely or unlikely and what Warner would have done is irrelevent. Look at the cold hard facts, Mok. Not your dream scenario.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  13. #43
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    You can't use a "cold hard fact" in an argument that is based on a hypothetical situation! The whole arguement is hypothetical. If Warner had stayed...that opens up so many different variables that to keep the argument going you have to present probabilities.

    If Warner had stayed you can't assume Bulger would still even be here. God, you could go off on a million different situations. Just adding Warner's salary to Bulger's current salary and saying that it would have cost the Rams more to keep both players is making an awful lot of leaps and assumptions in itself.

    Break it down, if the Rams had kept Warner, at his contract salary, do you honestly think that they would have given Bulger a fairly lucrative 3-year deal? You HAVE to make some assumptions to even have the conversation.

  14. #44
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    I ask then, where does this hypothetical situation of Warner staying and Bulger being let go come from? If anything is unlikely, it was the idea that the Rams would have kept Warner and let Bulger go.

    In fact, the only way I can see that situation playing out was if another team signed Bulger to an offer sheet the Rams could not have matched, and through various reports, we know that no team was even sniffing Bulger at the high tender the Rams placed on him, making that situation rather unlikely as well.

    This is what we knew prior to Warner's release:

    -Fact: John Shaw said he would be willing to keep Warner "as a back-up" if Bulger couldn't be signed long term.

    -Fact: The Rams made it clear that they were interested in signing Bulger long-term, and began negotiations with him on a long term deal before the RFA signing period was even up.

    -Fact: Warner's agent, Mark Bartelstein, acknowledged that Warner realized he will begin next season in a backup role if he remains with the Rams.

    -Fact: ESPN's John Clayton reported that after Bulger's deal was signed, Martz might have been planning to ask Warner to remain with the team as a back-up at a reduced salary, and that it was ultimately Warner's decision to hit the open market later that offseason or remain as Bulger's backup for 2004.

    The bottom line is the Rams needed cap space, and since Warner was unwilling to take a paycut in order to remain on the team as a back-up, he was released.

    I know I'm going to get blasted for even suggesting this, but since you brought up Warner's character, what does it say about Kurt Warner when he won't take a reduction in salary to benefit the team? What does it say about Warner when he won't play in the NFL if it's not in a starting role? The New York Daily News just recently had an article where Warner says the chances of his retiring are greater if no team offers him a chance to start. So what does that say about his character?

    What it says to me is that after his rise to the top, Warner had no intention of being a back-up quarterback in this league. He'd rather not play football than be a back-up. So, our conclusion - Kurt Warner had no intension of being anyone's back-up, and the Rams had no intention of starting him ahead of Marc Bulger, whom they were trying to sign long term, and who was in no danger of being signed by another team.

    So where the hypothetical situation of Warner being kept and Bulger being let go comes from is anyone's guess. But one thing's for certain: it certainly wasn't likely, making any attempt to draw other hypotheticals from that situation rather unlikely as well.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  15. #45
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anyone want to question Bulger's importance to this team?

    I know I'm going to get blasted for even suggesting this, but since you brought up Warner's character, what does it say about Kurt Warner when he won't take a reduction in salary to benefit the team? What does it say about Warner when he won't play in the NFL if it's not in a starting role?
    That's a good question, what DOES it say? I see no character flaw in choosing to not play as opposed to sitting on the bench. Why don't you express your view on the subject?

    I'm also curious if you think he should have reduced his salary before he was going to get cut? Yes, please restructure my contract so I lose money as well as not being given a chance to compete for the job I've earned. Does that make any sense? I would consider it a character flaw if he had restructured his contract before being cut. Naive is the word that comes to mind.

    I don't argue that keeping Warner was unrealistic but I don't conveniently start the list of facts at the end of 2003. Martz, in my opinion, made it impossible for Warner to stay. When the "if Warner stayed" argument is suggested there are some things that are assumed, like Warner getting a chance to compete. Warner wouldn't stay otherwise so you can't base the argument fromt he point in 2003 where the brass set in stone that he would be a backup. You would have to go back further. I think it's been a looong time since Warner had any actual chance for competing for the starting job so you have to make the argument with some generalizations. I assumed that you would consider these things but, alas...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-13-2006, 01:26 PM
  2. The Quote Sheet - Wednesday
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -09-28-2006, 11:00 PM
  3. Rams 10th Anniversary Team
    By HUbison in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-03-2005, 01:10 PM
  4. Salary Cap Request
    By HUbison in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -12-31-2004, 02:48 AM
  5. St. Louis Rams: The Winning Team
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-01-2004, 07:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •