Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

[01d 0rd3r]

And thirdly, there isn't any real arguement here, only excuses for Marc Bulger.

And now instead of making excuses for bulger you can inform us on the real issues, please continue making a fool out of yourself, its fun to watch.

[Nick]

Let's try to keep things civil, people...

First off, comparing Bulger to Rothlisburger is like comparing Johnson (titanics' RB) to Jackson. Both are RBs, but they have different builds and styles of running.

That's one of the main problems that stands out about this argument. Yes, Big Ben has been sacked five more times than Bulger since 2004. And yes, Bulger was sacked 49 times in twenty-two games prior to that. But Big Ben is also 6'5", 240 pounds, and 27 years old. Marc Bulger is 6'3", 210 pounds (generous), and 32 years old. Which quarterback would you bet on as being the one capable of holding up to those kinds of hits? They are entirely different players, first and foremost from a physical standpoint. And I would point out that when Bulger was 27 years old, he was playing pretty well despite being sacked 40+ times. But that kind of punishment takes a toll, especially when you aren't really built to handle it.

Expecting the same type of play from two players who are vastly different not only from a physical standpoint but in terms of their age as well is pretty ridiculous. This is like saying that Marc Bulger should be able to take off and run with the ball because fellow quarterback Michael Vick is able to. I mean, they're both quarterbacks, right?

Ben hasn't put up jaw-dropping passing numbers, but anyone who watches him knows he's a very talented quarterback. Let's not forget he was a very high draft pick because of his ability and his potential. But Ben isn't invincible, and like Bulger, prolonged exposure to this kind of beating is going to have an effect, even with his larger frame.

The fact that Big Ben has taken a lot of sacks in his career is a concern. He's not just some Superman who is impervious to that. As one GM noted earlier this year, “But the way [Roethlisberger] plays, he’ll be lucky to play 10 years. … He might be a little bit of a drama queen, but he does get hit and he gets hit hard.”

Indeed.

When's the last time the Rams held a team to 10 points or fewer? (Answer: Week 11, 2007) It also happened twice in 2006 (Raiders and Broncos games). So for those keeping track at home, the Rams have only held teams to this point threshold 3 out of the last 48 games. By comparison, Pittsburgh did this 8 times last season and 18 times over the last 3 years.

No quarterback, with our offensive pieces the last few years, could score 25-30 points a week. And yet, that is what Bulger has to do in order to win because of the Rams defense. Again...the Rams putrescence the last two years is a result of incompetence at ALL phases of the game.

What a great point, and unsurprisingly, one that goes unmentioned by Bernie when comparing the two players. Of course he was quick to mention the running game, since he felt it fit his argument, but no mention of the vastly different defenses.

When you get sacked three or more times a game, it's a lot easier to overcome those negative plays and mount a comeback when you're only down 7-10 points rather than 20+. Last year, Pittsburgh's defense allowed on average 14 points per game. The Rams? 29. It's not even close.

It's not hard to envision a Pittsburgh team with Roethlisberger, Willie Parker, Hines Ward, Santonio Holmes, and Heath Miller among others scoring more than 14 points a game. But does a Rams offense with Bulger, Jackson, Holt, Avery, and Klopfenstein among others have a chance at scoring more than 29 points per game? Here's a hint - no team in the NFL averaged more than 29 points per game last year.

And to clarify, I actually agree that Bulger needs to put up this year if he wants to remain the Rams' starting quarterback. He hasn't played good football the last two years. He has, for various reasons, developed some bad habits that he needs to break. He has just as much to prove as anyone on this football team right now.

But comparing him to Big Ben seems rather pointless if in the process you conveniently ignore the differences between the two of them as players as well as the differences between the teams they play on.

[AvengerRam]

The last two years, Bulger was not only sacked a lot, he was hit and got the snot knocked out of him multitudes of times, with broken ribs for nearly an entire season no less. Maybe I'm just an apologist, but I see the pocket break down around Big Ben while it completely collapses around Bulger.

Exactly right. Comparing sack totals alone hardly tells the whole story. If there was a measure of how many seconds, on average, each QB has before being pressured or hurried, that would be a better indicator. If Ben holds the ball for 10 seconds and gets sacked, that on him. If Marc holds the ball for 3 and gets sacked, that's probably on the O line.

In the end... who cares? I'm a Bulger supporter, but I would never argue that Marc is better than Ben. I would argue, however, that Ben would not have had the success he has enjoyed playing behind the O line Bulger has had in the past two years.

[Fortuninerhater]

You cant be serious about crediting ben with winning superbowl 40 can you?
Yes i completely agree the man with a qb rating of 23 9/21 attempts 123 yards and 2 int won that game for pit, what would they ever do without him.
Hell randle el was the only one to throw a td in that game because he played a little in highschool and college.

As cali has said he does have 2 probowls and are you going to sit there and tell me that the fastest person to reach 1000 completions in league history is a bad qb because he had 2 down years?

Fine lets quite making excuses and put you on the spot. 06 season dawns and you are the starting qb for the rams you get sacked 49 times, now lets go to the 07 season in which you get sacked 37 times. now the 08 season dawns and you have broken ribs, tell me how often are you going to be flinching when a 300 pound dl comes running at you?

You're not seriously going to discredit a man that has QBed his team two Superbowl victories in 5 years, in favor of one that has exactly 0 appearances in 9 and has stunk like few others the last 2 years, are you?

Come on dude, even fans devoid of any football knowledge, understand that 2 Superbowls trump 0.

Do you even realize how difficult it is to just get to a Superbowl? I'll bet Marc Bulger does.

Like I've said and will say again, there is no real arguement here.


And as for putting me on the spot, you've got me there. As much as it pains me to admit it, yes I'll flinch every single time a 300 lb lineman comes at me. And on top of that, darnit, i'll probably flinch if a 75 lb waterboy comes at me. There...I said it, are you happy now?:

So what does that prove?

Are you saying that if you get sacked a lot, it's okay to flinch?

What exactly was the moral of that story?


Oh, I get it now.......you're saying Marc Bulger has a built-in excuse for not making plays because he flinches a lot.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place?

[AvengerRam]

So now going to Super Bowls is the measuring stick?

I guess that Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Fouts, then.

You see, that's the problem with trying to come up with a bright line test here. It just doesn't work that way.

Bulger has been hindered by a lack of protection. That's pretty hard to deny. That does not mean he's better than Roethlisberger but, again, who cares? That's just a meaningless strawman BM created to stir things up.

[Fortuninerhater]

So now going to Super Bowls is the measuring stick?

I guess that Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Fouts, then.

You see, that's the problem with trying to come up with a bright line test here. It just doesn't work that way.

Bulger has been hindered by a lack of protection. That's pretty hard to deny. That does not mean he's better than Roethlisberger but, again, who cares? That's just a meaningless strawman BM created to stir things up.

No Dilfer wasn't a better QB than Dan Fouts or Dan Marino as evidenced by their permanent homes in the Hall of Fame. He just happen to be in the right place at the right time. But that doesn't mean Bulger and Rothlisberger can't be compared.

Let's examine it shall we.

For the die-hard Ram fans who see everything through rose-colored glasses, let's forget the last 2 years. Just completely wipe it out. Let's pretend for arguement's sake, it never existed. Are we there yet? Good.

Now this may come as a suprise to some but, my friends........Marc Bulger never sniffed a Superbowl even when he played with the best tandem of WRs in the game, the best RB in the game, one of the best LTs in the game, a decent overall O-line and the best offensive mind in the game, all at the same time.

Isn't that comparable to the defense that people argue has saved Big Ben?

Uuuhhhh, yes it is.

So as far as I'm concerned that is the only legitimate way to compare them.

And under that measuring stick, Marc Bulger simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Azul e Oro]

No Dilfer wasn't a better QB than Dan Fouts or Dan Marino as evidenced by their permanent homes in the Hall of Fame. He just happen to be in the right place at the right time. But that doesn't mean Bulger and Rothlisberger can't be compared.

Let's examine it shall we.

For the die-hard Ram fans who see everything through rose-colored glasses, let's forget the last 2 years. Just completely wipe it out. Let's pretend for arguement's sake, it never existed. Are we there yet? Good.

Now this may come as a suprise to some but, my friends........Marc Bulger never sniffed a Superbowl even when he played with the best tandem of WRs in the game, the best RB in the game, one of the best LTs in the game, a decent overall O-line and the best offensive mind in the game, all at the same time.

Isn't that comparable to the defense that people argue has saved Big Ben?

Uuuhhhh, yes it is.

So as far as I'm concerned that is the only legitimate way to compare them.

And under that measuring stick, Marc Bulger simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I guess it comes down to rose-colored glasses vs blinkers.

In both SB years, Big Ben had a top 5 defense. Bulger has never had one higher than 16th.

It also may be worth noting, on the eve of our first game vs The Hags, that Bulger played very well in the playoff game vs Seattle in '04-the closest 'sniff" of the SB he's had; over 300 yds and 2 TDs. Faulk did not. Nor did the defense.

We are never going to get anywhere with a debate based on subjective criteria about bulger's leadership or courage under fire. It just isn't quantifiable.

BUT the difference in numbers...tangible production,in other words... isn't nearly the huge gap, esp when looked at game2game, that some of the stats thrown around by Bernie and others would make you think.

One more completion per game & MB's percentage jumps into the mid 60s. One more TD and one fewer INT every 4 games and his QB rating skyrockets into the 80s and is still below what he has accomplished in the past.Think about all the Klop drops,botched routes & hot reads,and just plain stonehanded drops by Pittman,Kreider,Becht, and,dare I say it,Holt, and it doesn't seem like such a huge mountain for Bulger to climb,does it?

If we get the increased production provided by better pass pro, a healthy Randy -one of the most glaring differences in the pass O of PIT and STL last year was at TE; Miller had more catches,yds, and TDs than all Ram TEs together, and WRs who are more experienced and better route runners,a healthy SJ's sure hands on the field for most of the year plus Darby & Gado contributing a bit,and Bulger will once again be considered a strength of this team.

I doubt that the personnel on defense can improve enough in one season to provide the push needed to propel us to playoff contenders,never mind the Big Show but you wouldn't care about that,anyway, since you seem to consider it irrelevant.

Edit NB: forgot to note that both GSOT SB appearances came after seasons where the Rams D was rated 6th and 3rd ....

[MauiRam]

What if Bulger plays well tomorrow? Will we make excuses for his good play? If we somehow manage a victory with a solid contribution from Marc, will we then pick him apart and give all the credit to our defense, Jackson, our new receivers, O-line and great coaching?

Marc can still throw accurately, but he has displayed a tendency to hold on to the ball too long. Hopefully Pat Shurmur can correct this through shrewd playcalling, and persistent coaching.

I too was impressed with Kerry's poise and awareness - I don't know how many balls he threw away, but it was more than a few. What a great game to open the 2009 season! The two missed field goals likely cost the Titans the game. Two hard nosed great defenses battling away .. demonstrating once again that a game needn't be high scoring to be exciting ..

[tomahawk247]

Everyone knows that Bulger needs to step up, this isnt something shocking that people havent been talking about. The thing is, Marc Bulger is our QB. We havent got anyone else. Lets stop getting on his back and lets actually support him. At the end of the season, if he has played bad, we can say goodbye to him. But the fact is, he is here now and he is our QB. The problem is, it isnt like the Rams are a decent QB away from winning the Superbowl. This team is coming off a two win season, and is probably the youngest team in the league. Its also one of the least talented rosters in the league. So i wouldnt be looking at the results the Rams get as a way to judge Bulger's performance.

Criticising Bulger is only going to affect his performance in one way. Negatively. So lets just stop it and support him.

Also, the supposed Marc Bulger apologists are only around because the Marc Bulger haters keep going on and on about Bulger being crap. If we didnt have to listen to that stuff all the time, there would be no Marc Bulger apologists.

[bigredman]

As Nick pointed out, the size and age between the two is not comparable. Bulger gets sacked because our offensive line stinks even against 3 and 4 man rushes and Marc doesn't audible or read defenses well. He was brought up in Martz's timing pass pattern system, and when those receivers aren't open when they are supposed to be, he either forces it resulting in an interception, or hangs onto the ball searching for a receiver (which calls into question his field vision).

Ben has a good line, but absolutely no running game, so there's nothing to keep the safeties honest to support the run, hence, his receivers take more time to get open.

What is noticeably different between the two is the emotion in which they play. Ben is a fiery leader both on the field and on the sideline. Marc is stoic and often is on the sideline quietly standing with no one around him. He has a tendency to brood, and he doesn't raise the performance of the players around him. As the team goes, so does Bulger.

With that said, Marc is an accomplished pocket passer, and when given time or receivers that get open quickly, he has an above average arm and very good accuracy.

First of all, who is "you people"?

YouTube - Tropic Thunder clip You People

[CaliGirlRamsFan]

I have to clean my key board and screen now Red! And I did Rep you.

[gap]

SNIP...

I remember Brady looking like a deer in the headlights when the Spags led Giants whipped the crap out of him in the Super Bowl. This will happen to any QB ...

This is because it was the first SB that they play without having the other team's walk-through on tape. Amazing how hard it is to play a game when you don't already know what the other team is going to do.

gap

[CaliGirlRamsFan]

I highly doubt you will find any Ram fan that has NOT forgotten the last two years. We sucked, everyone knows that.

No Dilfer wasn't a better QB than Dan Fouts or Dan Marino as evidenced by their permanent homes in the Hall of Fame. He just happen to be in the right place at the right time. But that doesn't mean Bulger and Rothlisberger can't be compared.

Let's examine it shall we.

For the die-hard Ram fans who see everything through rose-colored glasses, let's forget the last 2 years. Just completely wipe it out. Let's pretend for arguement's sake, it never existed. Are we there yet? Good.

Now this may come as a suprise to some but, my friends........Marc Bulger never sniffed a Superbowl even when he played with the best tandem of WRs in the game, the best RB in the game, one of the best LTs in the game, a decent overall O-line and the best offensive mind in the game, all at the same time.

Isn't that comparable to the defense that people argue has saved Big Ben?

Uuuhhhh, yes it is.

So as far as I'm concerned that is the only legitimate way to compare them.

And under that measuring stick, Marc Bulger simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Nick]

Now this may come as a suprise to some but, my friends........Marc Bulger never sniffed a Superbowl even when he played with the best tandem of WRs in the game, the best RB in the game, one of the best LTs in the game, a decent overall O-line and the best offensive mind in the game, all at the same time.

That's a pretty generous assessment. The only ones I think you're close on are the best WR tandem and one of the game's best LT. The others, I think you're a good bit off.

Let's start with the best RB in the game. You can't be talking about Faulk, because he was mediocre in 2002 and beyond, nothing like his GSoT days. Jackson has had one great season (2006) and three good ones. Regardless of whether or not you consider Jackson to have been the best RB in the game at some point, the Rams have never in Bulger's time had a rushing offense that's been considered among the best in the league or even strong for that matter. For instance, only once during Bulger's span as a full time starter have the Rams ranked above 22nd in rushing yards per game, and that was a middle of the pack rank of 17th in 2006. From a production standpoint, the Rams have not been a strong running team, nor have they remained committed to the run as they've never ranked above 22nd in rushing attempts.

Additionally, claiming the Rams have had a "decent overall O-line" at any time in the last half decade or so made me do a double take. The Rams have given up 40+ sacks every season since 2000. When your team averages 44 sacks a year for the last ten years, then you've got some problems. Plus there are the troubles in the running game that I touched upon briefly earlier, as the Rams under Bulger have never had a particularly strong running attack. So I'm not sure what about this line's performance over the last half decade has led you to conclude they've been a decent overall unit, but I would disagree. And I think the fact that the Rams have gone out and spent big money on their line in recent years would support the idea that it wasn't getting the job done.

As for the coaching, simply put, I think referring to post-2001 Mike Martz as the game's best offensive mind is a stretch. Maybe you can make a case that he was still among the best in 2003 for Bulger's first year as a full time starter, but that's about it. The decline was sharp after that, and I don't believe the best offensive mind is even employed right now.

Isn't that comparable to the defense that people argue has saved Big Ben?

Uuuhhhh, yes it is.

I really don't believe it is. One, because I disagree with your characterization of the pieces around Bulger being as good as you've described. But two, because I don't think it can be understated how tough a poor defense is to overcome.

Consider that the last time the Rams' offense has averaged more points per game than the defense has allowed was 2003 (Rams offense scored 27.9 ppg, defense allowed 20.5 ppg). In every other season since Bulger has become the full-time starter, the Rams' defense has not only allowed more points per game on average than the Rams' offense has been able to score, but they've allowed more points per game than most NFL offenses have been able to score in those same seasons.

In 2008, no offense in the NFL averaged more points per game than the Rams gave up. In 2005 and 2007, only two and three teams respectively averaged more points per game offensively than the Rams gave up those years. In 2004 and 2006, only seven teams averaged more points per game than the Rams' defense was giving up. None of those seven teams in either year was the Rams. And that 2006 team had three Pro Bowlers on offense (Jackson, Holt, and of course, Bulger).

Simply put, this defense has been bad and it's been bad for a while. Combining our averages over the last six years while Bulger has been the full-time starter, this defense has allowed 25.3 points per game on average. To compare? In the five years that Big Ben has been a starter in Pittsburgh, the Steelers defense has allowed 16.4 points per game on average, nearly ten points per game fewer than the Rams. To further illustrate the difference, allow me to refer back to an earlier example: whereas no 2008 NFL offense averaged more points per game than the Rams' defense allowed, 31 teams in the league last year - including the Rams - averaged more points per game than the Steelers defense allowed.

Again, IMO, the impact of this kind of defensive unit cannot be understated, especially in terms of the overall success of the team.

Also, the supposed Marc Bulger apologists are only around because the Marc Bulger haters keep going on and on about Bulger being crap. If we didnt have to listen to that stuff all the time, there would be no Marc Bulger apologists.

Good point. You'll notice this thread wasn't started because someone wanted to proclaim how awesome Bulger is. These discussions rarely begin with someone talking about how awesome Marc Bulger is. Generally, they begin by someone deciding it's time to blast Marc for whatever reason, and doing it in a manner that's slightly less than sensible (ie. saying sacks should be overcome because Roethlisberger can do it).

Ben has a good line, but absolutely no running game, so there's nothing to keep the safeties honest to support the run, hence, his receivers take more time to get open.

BRM, I think your analysis touched on a number of good points. One thing I'd point out, though, is that Ben having absolutely no running game isn't a common thread through his career. In fact, prior to 2008, the Steelers with Roethlisberger have consistently been a pretty strong running team.

In Ben's first two seasons, the Steelers were back to back in most rushing attempts in the league. From 2004 to 2007, they never finished outside of the top ten in average yards per game, even when their yards per attempt average weren't great. And while their 2008 rushing attack wasn't very productive in yardage, they still remained committed to it, ranking 9th in the league in attempts last season.

So I think the Steelers have had a running game during Ben's career there, and generally it's been a good one. And even when it hasn't been great, ala last season, they've at least remained committed to it.

Can the same be said about the Rams under Bulger? I think the answer is an obvious no.

[btimsah]

Marc Bulger cannot ever be held accountable because he's on a bad team, but one of the reason's the team is so bad is because of Marc Bulger.

Pick your side.