Bernie: Faulk Still Reeling From 'Being Cheated'

[Curly Horns]

Marshall touched the ball 5 times in the second half. League MVP and he was basically a decoy the entire second half while the receivers got mugged and Warner got drilled. Martz shoulders a lot of the blame in my opinion because he HAS to find a way to get the ball in Marshall's hands. If some go for a few yards at a time (even though Marshall averaged 5.5 per that year), you just never knew when he was going to break one and that is why you had to keep him involved. Too great of an asset to not involve.

First off let's get some things accurate. Faulk touched the ball 9 times in the 2nd half, 7 rushes and 2 receptions. Having corrected that I understand your point.

However, you can't play or analyze the game in a vacuum. It's great to think that Faulk should get a certain number of touches in any game, half or quarter. But the game constantly changes throughout. Momentum shifts, turnovers, field position, the score and the dreaded clock.

Let's not forget that the Rams started the 2nd half down 14-3. They are playing catch up at that point. NE got the ball to start the 3rd quarter and they went nowhere in a little over 3 mins. The first Rams series is one of only 2 series in the 2nd half that Faulk did not get at least one touch. That would also be my biggest 2nd guess of why not. I suspect Martz was trying to get a quick TD to make the game one possession. What's more I would think that Faulk is a check down on most pass plays and Warner failed to utilize him - if he was open. I say IF because he was constantly being held while coming out of the backfield.
This series the Rams moved the ball to midfield and then were forced to punt.

With 6:40 left in the 3rd quarter the Rams started their second series of the half. Faulk carried the ball 4 straight times to start the drive. Then Martz went to a pass to change things up. Martz then went to another pass play and Warner suffered his 2nd pick of the game. NE then took advantage of the turnover and converted a FG using up most of the rest of the 3rd quarter in doing so.

Now the Rams are down 17-3 or two TD possessions at the start of the 4th quarter. Do they have time at that point to go away from their identity and try to establish the run? I don't think so. They need to score points and they need to do so in a hurry. as it turns out the Rams would only get 3 more possessions at that point. Yet Faulk would still get 5 more touches in two of those possessions. And we'll never know how many more he would have had if he had not been held coming out of the backfield.

Turnovers suck and they suck even more if you can't get any. That's what happened to the Rams. Those 3 turnovers were absolute killers. It did not help things that belichick cheated on two fronts. He instructed his defense to play outside of the rules because he knew they'd get away with it in the big game. And of course the video taping was the other method of cheating.

It's interesting to note that in SB36 Faulk had 17 carries for 76 yards and 4 receptions for 54 yards. But in SB34 Faulk had 10 carries for 17 yards and 5 receptions for 90 yards. In SB34 Faulk had less total yards and less carries, BUT, no one complains and calls Martz an idiot because we won the game, go figure.

[r8rh8rmike]

Marshall touched the ball 5 times in the second half. League MVP and he was basically a decoy the entire second half while the receivers got mugged and Warner got drilled. Martz shoulders a lot of the blame in my opinion because he HAS to find a way to get the ball in Marshall's hands. If some go for a few yards at a time (even though Marshall averaged 5.5 per that year), you just never knew when he was going to break one and that is why you had to keep him involved. Too great of an asset to not involve.

Going back and looking at the play by play, as Ferter noted, Faulk actually touched the ball 9 times in the second half, gaining 61 yards. In the first half, he had 12 touches for 69 yards. Was 21 touches enough for the best player on the field, who was pretty much lighting it up with a 6.2 yard average per touch? Given what was happening on the field, not IMO.

A lot of things went wrong in that game, and Martz was certainly part of the problem. IMO, by stubbornly playing into the Patriots hands, he exposed Warner, resulting in the turnovers that were a major factor in the loss. Martz made the Rams predictable, and Belicheat took full advantage. Martz was thoroughly outcoached, and it cost us.

USATODAY.com - Super Bowl XXXVI play-by-play

[Curly Horns]

Going back and looking at the play by play, as Ferter noted, Faulk actually touched the ball 9 times in the second half, gaining 61 yards. In the first half, he had 12 touches for 69 yards. Was 21 touches enough for the best player on the field, who was pretty much lighting it up with a 6.2 yard average per touch? Given what was happening on the field, not IMO.

A lot of things went wrong in that game, and Martz was certainly part of the problem. IMO, by stubbornly playing into the Patriots hands, he exposed Warner, resulting in the turnovers that were a major factor in the loss. Martz made the Rams predictable, and Belicheat took full advantage. Martz was thoroughly outcoached, and it cost us.

USATODAY.com - Super Bowl XXXVI play-by-play

Most of this I have already gone over in my previous post. Once again you are analyzing Faulk's touches in a vacuum. Mike, you know full well they were holding him from coming out of the backfield. Mike, you are also an admitted Martz hater so IMO your criticism of Martz is clouded with personal bias.

Everyone on the Rams TEAM was part of the problem. It really should end there but personal bias towards Martz prevents that for some.

I'd really like to know how he exposed Warner any more than he ever exposed Warner? Maybe you could elaborate on that. I see Warner making mistakes on the two interceptions with the first having the added element of a botched protection. Kurt threw the picks not Martz. Proehl fumbled the ball not Martz. The Rams played their game and we have Faulk saying they put in new redzone plays. If they were predictable then they were predictable all season up to and including the SB.

I find it funny how you believe that the Rams were cheated (video taping - illegal holding of receivers) you even refer to belichick as bilicheat. Yet in the very next breath you claim that Martz was thoroughly out-coached? Come on Mike, how could he have been thoroughly out-coached if belichick cheated? What was he to do, counter belichicks cheating with his own. You guys need to stop and think, because the manner in which you express things and the accusations that you make completely exonerate belichick for cheating.

I'd like to reiterate that no one complains that Faulk had less carries and fewer total yards in SB34. But Martz haters sure do complain about it over SB36.

[r8rh8rmike]

Most of this I have already gone over in my previous post. Once again you are analyzing Faulk's touches in a vacuum. Mike, you know full well they were holding him from coming out of the backfield. Mike, you are also an admitted Martz hater so IMO your criticism of Martz is clouded with personal bias.

If Martz would have rammed a red hot Faulk down the Patriots throats from the start, IMO, the flow of the game, the pressure on Warner, and the score would have been different. He had 1 run on the first series, and 2 on the second. Faulk was indeed being held coming out of the backfield, but that didn't stop him from taking handoffs coming out of the backfield. And for the record, I'm not a Martz "hater", but he often did things that I hated.

Everyone on the Rams TEAM was part of the problem. It really should end there but personal bias towards Martz prevents that for some.

No personal bias, I just do not think Martz is a sacred cow beyond criticism. I never said Martz was THE problem, rather part of the problem.

A lot of things went wrong in that game

I'd really like to know how he exposed Warner any more than he ever exposed Warner? Maybe you could elaborate on that.

It was clear from the start that the Patriots were taking away routes, forcing Warner to hold on to the ball, forcing him to attempt to improvise in the pocket, and forcing him to run for his life (not his thing). The result was that he took a pounding, was sacked 3 times, and was intercepted twice.

I find it funny how you believe that the Rams were cheated (video taping - illegal holding of receivers) you even refer to belichick as bilicheat. Yet in the very next breath you claim that Martz was thoroughly out-coached? Come on Mike, how could he have been thoroughly out-coached if belichick cheated? What was he to do, counter belichicks cheating with his own. You guys need to stop and think, because the manner in which you express things and the accusations that you make completely exonerate belichick for cheating.

IMO, the cheating probably helped a play here or there, whereas what Martz did permeated throughout the entire game. Belicheat adjusted to his strengths, took what the officials were allowing, got his players to buy into what he was doing, and outcoached Martz.

[DE_Ramfan]

IMO, the cheating probably helped a play here or there, whereas what Martz did permeated throughout the entire game. Belicheat adjusted to his strengths, took what the officials were allowing, got his players to buy into what he was doing, and outcoached Martz.

In my opinion one or two plays is all it takes to change a football game. It's often those big, unexpected gains that turn the tide in one teams favor. If the Pats cheated then everything else is moot. They had an unfair advantage.

I look like a genius watching reruns of Jeopardy. Video tape is great that way.

I also find it funny that in any other sport when they catch someone cheating they strip them of titles, take their records away, and drag them before Congress and Oprah. But for that Superbowl it's, "Hey. Shoulda ran the ball."

[r8rh8rmike]

In my opinion one or two plays is all it takes to change a football game. It's often those big, unexpected gains that turn the tide in one teams favor. If the Pats cheated then everything else is moot. They had an unfair advantage.

I would't disagree with most of that, although I don't think everything else is moot. The Rams were the better team, and if they played to their strength that day, Marshall Faulk, IMO they could have overcome any spygate advantage the Patriots had. That's just the way I see it.

[Curly Horns]

If Martz would have rammed a red hot Faulk down the Patriots throats from the start, IMO, the flow of the game, the pressure on Warner, and the score would have been different. He had 1 run on the first series, and 2 on the second. Faulk was indeed being held coming out of the backfield, but that didn't stop him from taking handoffs coming out of the backfield. And for the record, I'm not a Martz "hater", but he often did things that I hated.

We were a high octane pass first offense. No one had completely stopped us all season. In hindsight you say come out running but there was no way to know how NE was going to come out on defense. Martz played his game like he always did. Never a complaint when it worked but now in hindsight you say they should have done something different. That's too funny!

Well you've never said that you liked Martz, or as I recall anything positive about him, so MAYBE hate was a slight exaggeration.

No personal bias, I just do not think Martz is a sacred cow beyond criticism. I never said Martz was THE problem, rather part of the problem.

Kurt Warner is the sacred cow in all of this. He threw the two picks that really killed us! I loved Kurt as much as anyone but when you get past all the other crap he is the most to blame IMO.

It was clear from the start that the Patriots were taking away routes, forcing Warner to hold on to the ball, forcing him to attempt to improvise in the pocket, and forcing him to run for his life (not his thing). The result was that he took a pounding, was sacked 3 times, and was intercepted twice.

Oh BS, Mike. Nothing was clear from the start except that Warner was off target and missed a checkdown. The second Rams series they moved the ball right down the field and kicked a FG. Their third series they moved the ball right down the field again yet Wilkens missed the FG. On the next series came the ill fated pick six. The next series the Rams ran 5 plays 2 of which were Faulk carries for a total of 2 yards and they ended up punting. The Rams basically had the ball one more time. They ran three plays the 3rd play being the catch and fumble by Proehl.

IMO, the cheating probably helped a play here or there, whereas what Martz did permeated throughout the entire game. Belicheat adjusted to his strengths, took what the officials were allowing, got his players to buy into what he was doing, and outcoached Martz.

A play here or there? Your last statement claimed they were able to take away routes. Actually they slowed down routes by using their illegal tactics to disrupt timing. This was not an adjustment by belichick to a strength rather it was a plan to play outside of the rules to mask a weakness. They were outmatched and he knew it. This would be their only chance as long as the refs held the flags. It was poor sportmanship in my mind, cheating put simply.

We've debated this off and on for about ten years. It's clear that we are never going to agree in this setting. You have only watched the game one time in person. I know if we could watch the game together we could come to an understanding. The cheating slowed the Rams down but the turnovers ultimately cost them the game.

[r8rh8rmike]

We were a high octane pass first offense. No one had completely stopped us all season. In hindsight you say come out running but there was no way to know how NE was going to come out on defense. Martz played his game like he always did. Never a complaint when it worked but now in hindsight you say they should have done something different. That's too funny!

That's a fair point, but I still think it was clear early that what Martz wanted to do was not working. Faulk was the NFL Offensive Player of The Year, and by not riding him in the first half, the Rams were put in a hole.

No one "completely" stopped the Rams passing game, although Philidelphia did hold Warner to 212 yards and 1 TD in the NFC Championship. BTW, Faulk had 159 yards on 31 carries, and 2 TD's in that game.

A play here or there? Your last statement claimed they were able to take away routes. Actually they slowed down routes by using their illegal tactics to disrupt timing. This was not an adjustment by belichick to a strength rather it was a plan to play outside of the rules to mask a weakness. They were outmatched and he knew it. This would be their only chance as long as the refs held the flags. It was poor sportmanship in my mind, cheating put simply.

Belicheat adjusted to how the game was being officiated. THAT cheating was on the officials.

[Curly Horns]

Belicheat adjusted to how the game was being officiated. THAT cheating was on the officials.

Nah, he went in with the plan. He instructed it and rehearsed it prior to the game. It was fairly complex and not something you just adjust to on the sidelines. Like I said we will never agree like this. The only way to any understanding or compromise is to sit down and watch the game.

[r8rh8rmike]

Nah, he went in with the plan. He instructed it and rehearsed it prior to the game. It was fairly complex and not something you just adjust to on the sidelines. Like I said we will never agree like this. The only way to any understanding or compromise is to sit down and watch the game.

I'm not sure how Belicheat formulated a game plan to illegally mug Ram receivers with complete complicity from the officials. Rather, he had his defense test what they could get away with, then adjusted accordingly. Again, that cheating was on the officials.

I had the game on video and watched it a few times. I then destroyed it.

[Curly Horns]

he had his defense test what they could get away with, then adjusted accordingly.

He planned and practiced what he thought he might be able to get away with. Had the flags started to come out he probably backs off.

Who knows for certain. He probably had a back up plan. After all, the guy's a genius.

[Curly Horns]

he had his defense test what they could get away with, then adjusted accordingly.

He planned and practiced what he thought he might be able to get away with. Had the flags started to come out he probably backs off.

Who knows for certain. He probably had a back up plan. After all, the guy's a genius.

[AvengerRam]

The one thing I'll add to this discussion is the following thought: it does not matter whether or not the cheating can be directly linked to plays that altered the outcome of the game.

Cheating is wrong, and it tarnishes the game regardless of whether the outcome is changed.

And as for the "if you're not cheating you're not trying" crowd... please. That is the biggest load of horse crap I've ever heard. You know who came up with that saying? A cheater.

[gap]

I'm not sure how Belicheat formulated a game plan to illegally mug Ram receivers with complete complicity from the officials. Rather, he had his defense test what they could get away with, then adjusted accordingly. Again, that cheating was on the officials.

I had the game on video and watched it a few times. I then destroyed it.

This is where the 911 theory comes in. Add in my theory that tagbut was not going to stand on the SB winners podium with Georgia again, and you know how belicheat knew the officials would allow that gameplan.


gap

[r8rh8rmike]

This is where the 911 theory comes in. Add in my theory that tagbut was not going to stand on the SB winners podium with Georgia again, and you know how belicheat knew the officials would allow that gameplan.


gap

Conspiracy theories aside, it didn't take a genius to figure out early on that the officials were going to allow an aggressive, physical, let 'em go at it style of play. Surely Martz was aware of that, yet he did little to counter it. Despite his receivers being held, hit, and disrupted from their timing routes, he continued to call them. Two weeks earlier, in the NFC Championship game that was a similarly physical slug fest, he gave Faulk the ball 31 times (as opposed to only 17 in the Super Bowl), and it paid off. Faulk shredded the Eagle defense for 159 yards and 2 TD's. The fact that he didn't employ that same strategy against the Patriots, given what was happening on the field, is still maddening.

IMO, arrogance, stubbornness, and an "I'll show you" attitude got the best of Mike Martz in Super Bowl 36.