Bulger and the deep ball

***moklerman*** · -01-09-2005

The difference being, Bulger was the problem and needed improvement. Faulk wasn't the problem and people said he was done.

Also, I didn't start a thread on the Faulk subject, just tried to debunk the idea that that Faulk's succcess was some kind of revelation.

**Nick** · -01-09-2005

Mmmk, Pot.

***moklerman*** · -01-09-2005

Pot

Is that what you're on? I was wondering why you haven't said anything worth reading lately. It's clear now. Have some munchies and stay of the keyboard for a while.

***txramsfan*** · -01-10-2005

Bulger had problems last year with it, this year he dosen't.

**Nick** · -01-10-2005

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Bulger had problems last year with it, this year he dosen't.

If I remember correctly, didn't the Rams bring back the guy who was quaterback coach during '99-'01 this year? If that's the case, I wonder how much of Bulger's progress is pure natural progression and how much is a testament to good positional coaching. Then again, maybe I'm off-base on the QB coach thing.

***sbramfan*** · -01-10-2005

I rewatched the game. Bulger was money.

We get to play on our beloved "turf" this week, vs. outdoors.

The deep ball has done so much more than just gain yardage. All last year teams could just play tight and take chances. Now, it's opened up.

They need to come out and get the Falcons CB's on their heels. Stretch the field.

Then a heavy dose of Steven Faulk.... I mean Marshall Jackson.

I mean Isaac Holt....