Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65
  1. #46
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,927
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah View Post
    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.
    It's tough to pick a side when one of the sides you've presented simply doesn't exist (ie. no one has argued Bulger can never be held accountable, to my knowledge).


  2. #47
    dgr828's Avatar
    dgr828 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    THE GOLDEN STATE
    Posts
    1,917
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Still hoping upon hope, that Marc Bulger, 'WEST VIRGINIA'S FINEST', will break of his incredible funk and misfortunate bad luck of the past few seasons, and puts it all togather, to once again return to the glory days of 2004, when Bulger lead the Rams to victory 3 times, against a demoralized Seattle Seahawks team.
    I choose to BE HERE NOW, in the moment, instead of focusing on his past transgressions, pulling for This Rams Quarterback to once again work his Magic!
    My prayer would be that Bulger 'Pride of the Mountaineers' will give it that ol' College try and reclaim his place as one of the Elite QBs of the National Football League.
    GOD BLESS, AMERICA AND GOD BLESS, MARC BULGER......
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #48
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,510
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    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.



    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
    1) Ok, I'll concede that Faulk was on the decline by the time Bulger took over on a full-time basis. Prior to his knee injury however, he was still someone defenses had to gameplan for.

    2) I stand by the fact that Marc has played with at least 4 Hall of famers and a host of good complimentary players. Certainly enough talent IMO to have appeared in at least 1 Superbowl.

    3) Despite the fact that I believe Mike Martz was a terrible Head Coach, he was still an offensive genious and the primary reason why Marc Bulger has been as successful as he has. I've said before that he would likely finish in the bottom 3rd of the league if all current starting QBs were required to compete at the combine.

    4) No matter what you say, Marc Bulger has played with at least 1 decent offensive line. And I think it's ridiculous to attribute the high volume of sacks solely to the offensive-line, when your QBs over the last decade are Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger.

    5) They may have problems in the running game, but Steven Jackson is one of only 3 RBs to rush for 1,000 yards in each of the last 4 seasons. And did so having missed 4 games in each of the last 2 seasons. Go figure.

    The fact that they didn't finish near the top as a team, could be attributed to philosophy or the fact that they played mostly from behind. And sure that can be attributed to a poor defense, but it can also be attributed to a poor offense that can't sustain drives, much less score.

    No matter how you slice it, the team has been terrible, and IMO, Marc Bulger is as much to blame as anyone else.

  4. #49
    bradwill's Avatar
    bradwill is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    419
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Most of Bernie's stuff these days reads like a "worst of" list of discussion forum/e-mail lists. There is a glaring lack of any insight and I can get better analysis from the drunk at the end of the bar at closing time.

    Bulger needs to step it up, along with everyone else on the team. There is no one who has been on the squad in recent years that is exempt from criticism. They used to franchise tag Orlando Pace, a Pro Bowler and probably sure HOFer. Now it's Atogwe, a real ball-hawk with serious potential, but also a guy who has had his moments of awful tackling, blown coverage, and ineptitude like everyone else. The overall talent drop-off of the team has been by far the biggest problem lately, not Bulger, not Jackson, not the coach, etc. All have had their role in the malaise, but when you have drafted as terribly as the Rams have and botched personnel decisions over and over, you pay for it.

    Whether Bulger can help lead the team to better times might be debatable, but he's going to get the chance and here's hoping he can return to form.

  5. #50
    Bosna-Ram's Avatar
    Bosna-Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Age
    34
    Posts
    108
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Big Ben scored 13 points in that game. If Bulger had that defense he could come on top with 13 points. Big Ben is huge, and he can take those hits, how many other quarter backs could take that many shuts? Bernie Miklasz is columnist not journalist, he has to write about something - so picking on Bulger is easy work for him.

  6. #51
    BM_Face's Avatar
    BM_Face is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    43
    Posts
    431
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    I really hate Bernie. Did this guy even graduate from college? Which one? He makes the term "sports-journalists" a joke. He is unprofessional, unknowledgeable, and annoying.

    Sick of it. GoRams.
    A defeated look of consternation, dissappointment, or even pain. The name derives from the look one often gets when challenged by a large BM.

  7. #52
    GROUND DOG 39's Avatar
    GROUND DOG 39 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MANCHESTER, U.K.
    Posts
    1,483
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    THe steelers defense bails big ben out alot, so its a unfair comparison.
    I know where your coming from though-Big Ben doesnt flinch at the first sign of pressure.

  8. #53
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,582
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    No matter how you slice it, the team has been terrible, and IMO, Marc Bulger is as much to blame as anyone else.
    yes, he is as much to blame as anyone else, so why is it that you and many others are always making it out to be just Bulgers fault?

  9. #54
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,510
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    yes, he is as much to blame as anyone else, so why is it that you and many others are always making it out to be just Bulgers fault?
    I can't answer for others, but you sir, need to read more of my posts and what they're in response to, if you believe that load.

    I was one of the very outspoken members of this board (or maybe it was the old board) in favor of Bulger over Warner. At the time, I supported Marc Bulger because I believed he gave us the best chance to win. And though he was far from spectacular at the outset, he proved that he could lead this team to victory.

    Warner was argueably, the greatest QB in this franchise's history at that point, so obviously I took a lot of flack for openly supporting Bulger. But I certainly never waivered. Much like now.

    It remains to be seen if Marc Bulger can re-gain his old penchant for leading this team to victory as he did back then. But the beginning of my criticism of him came when others began making excuses for him. In effect, "enablers".

    Or when someone pointed to other players or coaches, but left Marc Bulger untouched. That's when I began to voice my opinion on him.

    Not that he was always the one to blame, but he certainly was part of the problem.

    It got worse when he signed the richest contract in this teams history and I don't regard him as even a top ten player. That had resentment all over it for me. Not just that he became the richest player in my favorite team's history, but that he was not being held accountable for his own poor play. So I began to hold him accountable, something that incensed some on this board.

    It was always somebody elses fault, but never the beloved Marc Bulger. And though I realize that nothing is ever just one man's fault on a football field, I choose to hold the richest one, and the supposed team leader accountable the most. Marc Bulger just happens to be him.

  10. #55
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,927
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    1) Ok, I'll concede that Faulk was on the decline by the time Bulger took over on a full-time basis. Prior to his knee injury however, he was still someone defenses had to gameplan for.

    2) I stand by the fact that Marc has played with at least 4 Hall of famers and a host of good complimentary players. Certainly enough talent IMO to have appeared in at least 1 Superbowl.

    3) Despite the fact that I believe Mike Martz was a terrible Head Coach, he was still an offensive genious and the primary reason why Marc Bulger has been as successful as he has. I've said before that he would likely finish in the bottom 3rd of the league if all current starting QBs were required to compete at the combine.

    4) No matter what you say, Marc Bulger has played with at least 1 decent offensive line. And I think it's ridiculous to attribute the high volume of sacks solely to the offensive-line, when your QBs over the last decade are Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger.

    5) They may have problems in the running game, but Steven Jackson is one of only 3 RBs to rush for 1,000 yards in each of the last 4 seasons. And did so having missed 4 games in each of the last 2 seasons. Go figure.

    The fact that they didn't finish near the top as a team, could be attributed to philosophy or the fact that they played mostly from behind. And sure that can be attributed to a poor defense, but it can also be attributed to a poor offense that can't sustain drives, much less score.

    No matter how you slice it, the team has been terrible, and IMO, Marc Bulger is as much to blame as anyone else.
    1) But my point is he certainly wasn't the best RB in the game when Bulger was a full time starter, as you claimed. He was not the 2000+ yards from scrimmage machine he was during the GSOT. In 2003 when Bulger became the full time starter, Faulk managed just 1108 yards from scrimmage, his lowest output as a Ram to that point and lowest in his career since 1996.

    2) What's interesting about this position - that Bulger should have led one of these teams to the Super Bowl - is that, even when the GSOT was firing on all cylinders, it was only when they also received strong efforts from their defense that they reached the Super Bowl. In 2000, the Rams scored more points offensively than in either 1999 or 2001, and they had five offensive Pro Bowlers (Warner, Faulk, Holt, Bruce, Pace), but their defense was among the worst in the league in points and yards allowed, and they were eliminated in the Wild Card round. So if the GSOT offense only reached the Super Bowl when they also had a strong defensive effort, how is it that Bulger should have led a lesser offense (again, no GSOT Faulk) to the Super Bowl with worse defensive units?

    3) Yes, Mike Martz has had a hand in the success of many NFL players, Bulger included. But there's no doubt that Martz's genius had a shelf life, and his magic declined so much so that he's no longer coaching in the league (to my knowledge). Plus, Marc had perhaps his best year in 2006 under a different coaching staff, so I think it's possible he can succeed without Martz pulling the strings. Others think so as well, since according to Devaney, every coaching candidate he interviewed for the Rams' head coach job said they could win with Marc.

    4) No one attributed the high volume of sacks solely to the offensive line. But again, when your team has given up 40+ sacks every season since 2000 and has averaged 44 sacks a year for the last ten years, I think you've got an uphill battle convincing anyone the line has been decent. You claim he's played with at least one decent line. Well, which one was it? 2003's line? That's probably the best line he's played with, but the Rams tied for fourth worst in the league in sacks allowed and their running numbers were not good at all. At some point, a decent line show up in the efficiency of either the passing or running game. This is why, while it isn't solely on the offensive line, nearly a decade of poor sack numbers combined with poor rushing production certainly doesn't support the idea that this team has benefited from decent OL play. The fact that we're even debating whether or not Bulger has ever had one decent line should illustrate how unsatisfactory our lines have been over the last half decade if not longer.

    5) No one is disputing Jackson's talent. But talent does not necessarily equal production. The talent still has to perform, and the Rams' running game has never been more than average in production during Bulger's time here. Compare that to the 1999 Super Bowl team; though they finished middle of the pack in attempts, they were a top ten rushing team in terms of yards and yards per attempt. The 2001 team had similar results; not the best in attempts, but the production was there. While Bulger has been under center, the Rams really have not had the production of a top running game. Once once have they really had the production of a middle of the pack running game. Hopefully that changes this year, but we shouldn't pretend he's had a great running game to work with in the past.

  11. #56
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,510
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    1) But my point is he certainly wasn't the best RB in the game when Bulger was a full time starter, as you claimed. He was not the 2000+ yards from scrimmage machine he was during the GSOT. In 2003 when Bulger became the full time starter, Faulk managed just 1108 yards from scrimmage, his lowest output as a Ram to that point and lowest in his career since 1996.

    2) What's interesting about this position - that Bulger should have led one of these teams to the Super Bowl - is that, even when the GSOT was firing on all cylinders, it was only when they also received strong efforts from their defense that they reached the Super Bowl. In 2000, the Rams scored more points offensively than in either 1999 or 2001, and they had five offensive Pro Bowlers (Warner, Faulk, Holt, Bruce, Pace), but their defense was among the worst in the league in points and yards allowed, and they were eliminated in the Wild Card round. So if the GSOT offense only reached the Super Bowl when they also had a strong defensive effort, how is it that Bulger should have led a lesser offense (again, no GSOT Faulk) to the Super Bowl with worse defensive units?

    3) Yes, Mike Martz has had a hand in the success of many NFL players, Bulger included. But there's no doubt that Martz's genius had a shelf life, and his magic declined so much so that he's no longer coaching in the league (to my knowledge). Plus, Marc had perhaps his best year in 2006 under a different coaching staff, so I think it's possible he can succeed without Martz pulling the strings. Others think so as well, since according to Devaney, every coaching candidate he interviewed for the Rams' head coach job said they could win with Marc.

    4) No one attributed the high volume of sacks solely to the offensive line. But again, when your team has given up 40+ sacks every season since 2000 and has averaged 44 sacks a year for the last ten years, I think you've got an uphill battle convincing anyone the line has been decent. You claim he's played with at least one decent line. Well, which one was it? 2003's line? That's probably the best line he's played with, but the Rams tied for fourth worst in the league in sacks allowed and their running numbers were not good at all. At some point, a decent line show up in the efficiency of either the passing or running game. This is why, while it isn't solely on the offensive line, nearly a decade of poor sack numbers combined with poor rushing production certainly doesn't support the idea that this team has benefited from decent OL play. The fact that we're even debating whether or not Bulger has ever had one decent line should illustrate how unsatisfactory our lines have been over the last half decade if not longer.

    5) No one is disputing Jackson's talent. But talent does not necessarily equal production. The talent still has to perform, and the Rams' running game has never been more than average in production during Bulger's time here. Compare that to the 1999 Super Bowl team; though they finished middle of the pack in attempts, they were a top ten rushing team in terms of yards and yards per attempt. The 2001 team had similar results; not the best in attempts, but the production was there. While Bulger has been under center, the Rams really have not had the production of a top running game. Once once have they really had the production of a middle of the pack running game. Hopefully that changes this year, but we shouldn't pretend he's had a great running game to work with in the past.

    1) You failed to mention that is production that year was in just 11 games. Wouldn't want to give anybody the wrong impression. Like I said, he was on the decline due to injury, but still managed 100 yards a game. Not great but certainly not terrible

    2) Sometimes your best defense, is your offense. Say what you will about the GSOT years, but none of those defenses were any better than average either.

    It was the GSOT that made life hell for the opposition and the defense benefitted from that. Teams were always playing from behind, which meant that the original gameplan went out the window. That meant our defense could pin their ears back and attack a one-dimentional offense on most occassions. It's not that tough to play defense when you know a team has to pass. At least, that's the way I saw it.

    3) As I recall, Steven Jackson also had his best year that year. Now explain to me, how is it that a team's QB and RB had career years the same year, but didn't have a decent o-line. This ought to be good.

    4) When you're dealing with immobile QBs, you're going to give up a lot of sacks. I think that's pretty obvious. As great as Kurt Warner was, he was also a sitting duck much like Marc Bulger is. It should be no suprise to anyone that these guys get sacked a lot. Certainly isn't to me.

    5) Who's pretending? I just gave you stats of the man that carries the ball 90% of the time. I think 4 straight 1000 yard seasons is pretty impressive don't you? Particularly when you factor in he's missed at least 4 games in each of the last two seasons.

    But you know, like I know, they're obviously not going to be at the top of the league in rushing because until this year they've been a passing team. That's been the philosophy the last 10 years, has it not?

    And you certainly can't compare this team to the GSOT, because there is no comparison. The GSOT was argueably the best offense the NFL has ever witnessed.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -09-14-2009 at 01:56 AM.

  12. #57
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,289
    Rep Power
    70

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    1) You failed to mention that is production that year was in just 11 games. Wouldn't want to give anybody the wrong impression. Like I said, he was on the decline due to injury, but still managed 100 yards a game. Not great but certainly not terrible

    2) Sometimes your best defense, is your offense. Say what you will about the GSOT years, but none of those defenses were any better than average either.

    It was the GSOT that made life hell for the opposition and the defense benefitted from that. Teams were always playing from behind, which meant that the original gameplan went out the window. That meant our defense could pin their ears back and attack a one-dimentional offense on most occassions. It's not that tough to play defense when you know a team has to pass. At least, that's the way I saw it.

    3) As I recall, Steven Jackson also had his best year that year. Now explain to me, how is it that a team's QB and RB had career years the same year, but didn't have a decent o-line. This ought to be good.

    4) When you're dealing with immobile QBs, you're going to give up a lot of sacks. I think that's pretty obvious. As great as Kurt Warner was, he was also a sitting duck much like Marc Bulger is. It should be no suprise to anyone that these guys get sacked a lot. Certainly isn't to me.

    5) Who's pretending? I just gave you stats of the man that carries the ball 90% of the time. I think 4 straight 1000 yard seasons is pretty impressive don't you? Particularly when you factor in he's missed at least 4 games in each of the last two seasons.

    But you know, like I know, they're obviously not going to be at the top of the league in rushing because until this year they've been a passing team. That's been the philosophy the last 10 years, has it not?

    And you certainly can't compare this team to the GSOT, because there is no comparison. The GSOT was argueably the best offense the NFL has ever witnessed.
    If you'll excuse the pun, marshal some facts before posting.

    1. MF had 818 yds rushing in '03. that's 74/game. Since our rush O was ranked 30th in the league, I think terrible is a good word. I know he was magical in many ways but i never knew marshall had some sort of star trek-like tractor beam that drew the ball from the QB's hands so i think you have to give Bulger some of the credit for the other 300 yds of production there.

    2. Oh c'mon...GSOT was a double-edged sword for a defense that,as I already posted, was ranked 3rd and 6th in the SB years. That "average' D had to deal with the turnovers generated by the O, the many 3 & outs as well as benefitting from the high scoring cushion. It's just not as simple as you make out.

    3. Not good for your argument. The O-line and SJ had a terrible slump mid-season-along with a porous D that gave up 30+ points per game...oops i forgot the D is irrelevant...silly me... that screwed the season pooch.
    Padding his numbers with big games vs crummy opponents in meaningless contests still only got us to a truly 'average' overall performance rushing at #17.

    4. Not THAT many sacks.Just ask AZ last year. To not even acknowledge that Martz's minimalist protection schemes and the crumbling interior line of the '06 season had something to with it is ,again, so far from what everyone else thinks AND can back with actual facts is....

    5. this myth of the achievement of a 1000 yd season has been debunked repeatedly. Go look how many RBs do it every year. It's the missed games and inconsistent line play that keep SJ from preeminence. We weren't able to rely on them over a game or a season.

    Finally, just as an overall point; who carried who? The Rams had a pass attack that ranked top 5 in the 3 year stretch that Bulger and Faulk played together significantly(02-04).
    The rush attack was ranked in the bottom 10 all 3 yrs. You do the math. I'll leave out the D numbers in case that's overloading you with actual facts.

    Btw, find me the game where Bulger played badly & MF singlehandedly saved the day. Didn't happen.

  13. #58
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,510
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    Quote Originally Posted by Azul e Oro View Post
    If you'll excuse the pun, marshal some facts before posting.

    1. MF had 818 yds rushing in '03. that's 74/game. Since our rush O was ranked 30th in the league, I think terrible is a good word. I know he was magical in many ways but i never knew marshall had some sort of star trek-like tractor beam that drew the ball from the QB's hands so i think you have to give Bulger some of the credit for the other 300 yds of production there.

    2. Oh c'mon...GSOT was a double-edged sword for a defense that,as I already posted, was ranked 3rd and 6th in the SB years. That "average' D had to deal with the turnovers generated by the O, the many 3 & outs as well as benefitting from the high scoring cushion. It's just not as simple as you make out.

    3. Not good for your argument. The O-line and SJ had a terrible slump mid-season-along with a porous D that gave up 30+ points per game...oops i forgot the D is irrelevant...silly me... that screwed the season pooch.
    Padding his numbers with big games vs crummy opponents in meaningless contests still only got us to a truly 'average' overall performance rushing at #17.

    4. Not THAT many sacks.Just ask AZ last year. To not even acknowledge that Martz's minimalist protection schemes and the crumbling interior line of the '06 season had something to with it is ,again, so far from what everyone else thinks AND can back with actual facts is....

    5. this myth of the achievement of a 1000 yd season has been debunked repeatedly. Go look how many RBs do it every year. It's the missed games and inconsistent line play that keep SJ from preeminence. We weren't able to rely on them over a game or a season.

    Finally, just as an overall point; who carried who? The Rams had a pass attack that ranked top 5 in the 3 year stretch that Bulger and Faulk played together significantly(02-04).
    The rush attack was ranked in the bottom 10 all 3 yrs. You do the math. I'll leave out the D numbers in case that's overloading you with actual facts.

    Btw, find me the game where Bulger played badly & MF singlehandedly saved the day. Didn't happen.

    1) It's all a matter of philosophy. Passing teams don't generally finish near the top in rushing, unless they're extraordinary. And the point was not about giving Bulger credit or discrediting him, my point was who he's played with.

    2) Stand by my previous post

    3) Does that mean that we didn't have a decent O-line that year? Of course not. So I stand firmly by my previous post.

    4) I stand by my previous post

    5) I've already acknowledged that Marshall was on the decline due to injury, what more do you want?

    Nevertheless, Marc has played with significant talent which is my whole point. Whether it be Hall of Fame WRs, Backs, or Linemen and an offensive genious calling the plays. Minus them, who is Marc Bulger?

    But you can best believe, Marshall would still be Marshall, Steven Jackson would still be Steven Jackson, Torry and Isaac would still be Torry and Isaac, OP would still be OP and Mike Martz would still be Mike Martz.

  14. #59
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    No matter what the circumstances, the main role of the QB is to win. You have to win with the team around you. Due to circumstances that may be out of his control, Bulger isn't winning but banking big deposits. If he doesn't turn this team around, he's done.

  15. #60
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,297
    Rep Power
    142

    Re: Bernie: Bulger On The Spot

    The next time I hear one of the Bulger apologists make excuses for him, saying that his poor play over the last two seasons is directly attributable to the number of sacks and hits he takes, Iíll offer a two-word rebuttal: Ben Roethlisberger.
    And I'll counter with one word: Defense. Since this 5-27 walk through gohenna began, Ben has only had to overcome 14 points per game. Bulger....29.
    And itís not as if Roethlisberger is the benficiary of a strong running game; as we saw again Thursday night, the Pittsburgh Steelers are surprisingly mediocre on the ground.
    And yet he still has a better run game to support him than does Bulger. Run stats for same time period:

    Steelers - 971 attempts, 3,858 yards, 25 TDs, 4.0 per carry
    Rams - 821 attempts, 3,176 yards, 13 TDs, 3.9 per carry

    Geez, Bernie, do you even try? I'll email you with my address for you to send your most recent paycheck.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bulger Admits This Is His Last Chance
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: -12-15-2009, 11:32 AM
  2. Bulger Finding Fit In New Offense
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -08-13-2009, 09:57 AM
  3. Bulger Values Another Chance To Shine
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -06-03-2009, 09:57 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: -12-09-2007, 08:34 AM
  5. Linehan Believes Bulger is Among the Best
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -08-05-2006, 05:39 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
  •