Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48
  1. #16
    RealRam's Avatar
    RealRam is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    8,220
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    No point in putting Bulger back in the forward line of troops this week. Let Boller do his thing and allow MB to heal better. As Nick already said it here, it's "as simple as that".


  2. #17
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,597
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooselini View Post
    Why in the hell is McMichael a captain? I would've given Cogs the captain before McMichael. He better freaking earn that this weekend.

    I don't want Bulger playing unless he is 100%. Or if Boller just absolutely stinks it up. Which is bound to happen knowing Boller....
    Firstly, captains are usually seen as level-headed, well-liked and/or respected veterans, I don't think Cogs fits that decription.

    And secondly, If you thought about it for a moment, you might realize that Bulger is 5 and 30 over the last 2 plus years. Nobody in Rams history has been that bad.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -10-01-2009 at 11:55 PM.

  3. #18
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,864
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    As a Bulger supporter, even I have to say that he should sit this one out. He needs to let his arm heal for at least another week before he's let loose again. The reason why he gets the job when he's healthy though is simply, he's a better player than Boller is. He's more accurate on a consistent basis, and is less likely to throw a boneheaded interception. At the same time, he is more likely to take a sack due to holding it too long, so there's always the downside as well. Let's see what Boller can do with a week with the ones and then we can pass judgement. Don't forget, Bulger led us on a should have been scoring drive on our first possession last week.

  4. #19
    ramhomer's Avatar
    ramhomer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    33
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Firstly, captains are usually seen as level-headed, well-liked and/or respected veterans, I don't think Cogs fits that decription.

    And secondly, If you thought about it for a moment, you might realize that Bulger is 5 and 30 over the last 2 plus years. Nobody in Rams history has been that bad.
    Not even Burt Jones?

  5. #20
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Firstly, captains are usually seen as level-headed, well-liked and/or respected veterans, I don't think Cogs fits that decription.

    And secondly, If you thought about it for a moment, you might realize that Bulger is 5 and 30 over the last 2 plus years. Nobody in Rams history has been that bad.
    So's everyone else who has been associated with the franchise for that time period. Let's give them a sit too.

    As for Null. Again, he's a 5th rounder out of a Division II school who barely beat out Brock Berlin for the 3rd string job. Rookies out of top level BCS programs have trouble adjusting to the speed of both offensive and defensive players. How do you think a guy who has played 2 or 3 (depending on how you perceive Division I) levels below them will fare this early into the season?

    I can tell you what he will do at this point in his career given what little he has to work with on offense. He would stink out there. Guaranteed.

  6. #21
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredman View Post
    That's all we need is a QB with hurt arm slinging wounded ducks into the secondary. NO THANKS.
    At least Bulger has an excuse. What's Boller's?

  7. #22
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,597
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    If Bulger is not 100%, don't start him. Simple as that. Boller showed flashes of being able to make something happen in the second quarter, but any spark he created disappeared in the second half. Though he had quite a bit of work in the pre-season and apparently has been keeping his arm fresh by running the scout team, it'll be interesting to see what he does with a full week of practice with the 1's.
    Why is it that everytime Bulger supporters talk about Kyle Boller it always ends on a negative note?

    Even though he's the only QB that has gotten us in the endzone twice in one quarter dating back almost a full year, Bulger-lovers are quick to point out his second half last week.

    Why is that?

    What's wrong with saying "Boller showed flashes of being able to make something happen in the second quarter against the Packers", and leaving at that?

    Is it that you guys just have a hard time admitting that he had done something that your beloved Marc Bulger has been unable to do in almost a full year.

    In his first opportunity, he got Ram fans on their feet, while making it look relatively easy. When's the last time Marc Bulger generated that kind of excitement?

    If I recall correctly, you also took a similar position during the pre-season. It was no big deal to you that Kyle Boller QBed this team to 2 TDs in one quarter in his first start as a Ram even though Marc couldn't do it.

    For someone who claims to be fair in his assessments, you have made it abundantly clear that you are just as biased as many other Bulger fans on this board. That IMO is not a good thing.

  8. #23
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Why is it that everytime Bulger supporters talk about Kyle Boller it always ends on a negative note?

    Even though he's the only QB that has gotten us in the endzone twice in one quarter dating back almost a full year, Bulger-lovers are quick to point out his second half last week.

    Why is that?

    What's wrong with saying "Boller showed flashes of being able to make something happen in the second quarter against the Packers", and leaving at that?

    Is it that you guys just have a hard time admitting that he had done something that your beloved Marc Bulger has been unable to do in almost a full year.

    In his first opportunity, he got Ram fans on their feet, while making it look relatively easy. When's the last time Marc Bulger generated that kind of excitement?

    If I recall correctly, you also took a similar position during the pre-season. It was no big deal to you that Kyle Boller QBed this team to 2 TDs in one quarter in his first start as a Ram even though Marc couldn't do it.

    For someone who claims to be fair in his assessments, you have made it abundantly clear that you are just as biased as many other Bulger fans on this board. That IMO is not a good thing.
    The irony here is that, if Bulger came out in a game and had the kind of second half that Boller had, critics would fall over themselves being the first to point it out and would cry foul if anyone attempted to describe his performance without mentioning it. Yet now, because it's Boller, we're not only supposed to forget the second half, but even mentioning it demonstrates a clear bias?

    This is really getting ridiculous.

    You seem like an intelligent guy, which is why I'm so baffled that you honestly see no problem in saying only, "Boller showed flashes of being able to make something happen in the second quarter against the Packers." Because the problem is obvious - it only tells one part of a three-part story. That statement covers one quarter of the three Boller played. And not acknowledging what happened in the other two is what would actually be biased.

    You referenced something I said during the preseason about it being "no big deal" that Boller led the Rams to two touchdowns in one quarter in his first start. Of course, the Cincinnati game (which I assume is what you're referencing) wasn't Boller's first start as a Ram. Boller's first start as a Ram came the week before against the Falcons, and the Rams failed to score anything in the first two quarters with him under center.

    But regarding the Cincinnati game, what I actually said was that Boller was efficient, but not particularly impressive. Why? He simply wasn't asked to do much. The gameplan called for very quick passes to relatively easy routes - slants, quick in and out routes, curls - and minimal downfield passing. I gave him credit in a later post for the one downfield pass he completed, as well. But it simply wasn't an impressive display of quarterbacking, as he really didn't have to make any tough plays or difficult throws. I'm struggling to see how that description is particularly unfair or biased.

    Look, if Boller would have come out in the second half of the Packers game and had been as effective and accurate as he was most of the time in the second quarter, I would have given him credit for doing so. That's really undeniable, because I had no problem giving him credit for what he did in the second quarter, calling it "outstanding" in one post-game thread.

    The problem is, he didn't do that. He was inaccurate, he did not maintain his second quarter efficiency, and he turned the ball over on one particular bad pass that essentially sealed the win for Green Bay. There is nothing biased about pointing this out, because simply put, this is what happened. Rather, it would be biased to not point it out, as you seemingly are suggesting we refrain from doing.

    And again, if Bulger had done these things, critics would be pulling their hair out if "supporters" decided there was nothing wrong with leaving it out of their description of his game. And the thing is? We both know that's true, so I'm really not sure where this post is coming from, or why you've decided to try and make me the issue.

  9. #24
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by McKnight View Post
    I don't even think there was a question as to who the better QB is. Null has tons of upside and well Brock doesn't. the better QB beat out the lesser QB. Keith will have his chance weather it's this year or next.

    Josh
    The only certain plus I saw out of Null vs. Berlin is that Null is not in his mid-to-late 20s without advancing on depth charts. I strongly suspect Null was a pick for depth, because Boller isn't young to begin with, and setting that aside, it's kind of important to have a 3rd QB on the roster, or so we should have learned after the disasters of keeping only 2.

    I think if Null ever sees the field this year, we file that occasion under "QB injury Armageddon". Next year, it would depend on his spot on the depth chart, but I would still probably file his appearance under the same category.

  10. #25
    Guam rammer's Avatar
    Guam rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Guam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    835
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahmedrams81 View Post
    I don't want to see Boller or Bulger playing, I want to see what Null has got. I am very optimistic for the Rams but I am also very realistic. I must say guys, we are not going anywhere this year. I want to see what talent we have on the bench. Can we trust Null for the future, or do we need to invest in a franchise QB. Hopefully I don't get bashed for this, but we need to look forward to next year's season and the talent pool that we have. Lets test out those young guys!
    I agree with you completely. Boller needs a really short leash. Dude couldnt find the Sun in broad daylight with them five and ten yard passes. Git the young guy in there. What? you afraid we gonna lose?

  11. #26
    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
    18

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Boller must start this week, if only to see what he can do with a full week of practice
    under his belt- the greatest thing with Boller is his scrambling, he will at least keep the defense honest. THis weeks game will be tough for the rams playing a much improved ***** team on the road- Ill be interested to see what develop's.
    Hopefully some good things- Ill be watching that pass rush again this week, and please some turnovers.
    Last edited by GROUND DOG 39; -10-02-2009 at 07:50 AM. Reason: forgot important point.

  12. #27
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,597
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    The irony here is that, if Bulger came out in a game and had the kind of second half that Boller had, critics would fall over themselves being the first to point it out and would cry foul if anyone attempted to describe his performance without mentioning it. Yet now, because it's Boller, we're not only supposed to forget the second half, but even mentioning it demonstrates a clear bias?

    This is really getting ridiculous.

    You seem like an intelligent guy, which is why I'm so baffled that you honestly see no problem in saying only, "Boller showed flashes of being able to make something happen in the second quarter against the Packers." Because the problem is obvious - it only tells one part of a three-part story. That statement covers one quarter of the three Boller played. And not acknowledging what happened in the other two is what would actually be biased.

    You referenced something I said during the preseason about it being "no big deal" that Boller led the Rams to two touchdowns in one quarter in his first start. Of course, the Cincinnati game (which I assume is what you're referencing) wasn't Boller's first start as a Ram. Boller's first start as a Ram came the week before against the Falcons, and the Rams failed to score anything in the first two quarters with him under center.

    But regarding the Cincinnati game, what I actually said was that Boller was efficient, but not particularly impressive. Why? He simply wasn't asked to do much. The gameplan called for very quick passes to relatively easy routes - slants, quick in and out routes, curls - and minimal downfield passing. I gave him credit in a later post for the one downfield pass he completed, as well. But it simply wasn't an impressive display of quarterbacking, as he really didn't have to make any tough plays or difficult throws. I'm struggling to see how that description is particularly unfair or biased.

    Look, if Boller would have come out in the second half of the Packers game and had been as effective and accurate as he was most of the time in the second quarter, I would have given him credit for doing so. That's really undeniable, because I had no problem giving him credit for what he did in the second quarter, calling it "outstanding" in one post-game thread.

    The problem is, he didn't do that. He was inaccurate, he did not maintain his second quarter efficiency, and he turned the ball over on one particular bad pass that essentially sealed the win for Green Bay. There is nothing biased about pointing this out, because simply put, this is what happened. Rather, it would be biased to not point it out, as you seemingly are suggesting we refrain from doing.

    And again, if Bulger had done these things, critics would be pulling their hair out if "supporters" decided there was nothing wrong with leaving it out of their description of his game. And the thing is? We both know that's true, so I'm really not sure where this post is coming from, or why you've decided to try and make me the issue.
    That would be all fair and good if I ever saw you critque Marc Bulger that way.

    Instead you and a host of others spend most of your time defending a guy that's lead us to the worst period in our history while cashing in on the biggest contract any Ram has ever received, even though he's stunk for just about the last 3 years now. And at the same time hoping he turns it all around so you can feel justified in your defense of him.

    If that's not biased, I don't know what is.

    Why have I not seen those same critiques for Marc Bulger from you? You say there are deficiencies in his game, how about sharing some of those with us Nick, instead of always defending this guy.

    Certainly someone has said something critical of Marc Bulger that you agree with, right? How about sharing that with us.

    And yes, I am intelligent enough to know that it's an insult to all of our intelligence to see this guy who has lead us nowhere fast, being defended week-in and week-out as if he's Kurt Warner of 2000 or something. The first 2games I defended him, because I thought he did as well as he could with the ability he has.

    He is not Joe Montana, Dan marino, Brett Favre, John Elway, Tom Brady, Peyton or Eli Manning. Heck, I would argue that he's not even Marc Bulger.

    But he's defended on this board like he's the Pope or somebody.

    Yet some Bulger defenders can't wait to criticize his replacement as if somehow it justifies him stinking it up for going on 3 straight years now.

    It doesn't.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -10-02-2009 at 08:02 PM.

  13. #28
    RamOfDenmark is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,071
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Would it even help us win with Bulger in there instead of Boller? I'm not so sure anymore and it's not because I have suddenly gained a lot of confidence in our backups. But Boller did look better last week than Bulger has in a while.

    Maybe it's better for everyone if Bulger sits this one out and let us try someone else at QB so we can see what we've got in Boller or Null? I think we already know what we've got in the Marc Bulger of 2009 (or 2007 or 2008 for that matter), or at least those that want to know do.
    Last edited by RamOfDenmark; -10-02-2009 at 10:45 AM.

  14. #29
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    That would be all fair and good if I ever saw you critque Marc Bulger that way.

    Instead you and a host of others spend most of your time defending a guy that's lead us to the worst period in our history while cashing in on the biggest contract any Ram has ever received, even though he's stunk for just about the last 3 years now. And at the same time hoping he turns it all around so it'll so you can feel justified in your defense of him.

    If that's not biased, I don't know what is.

    Why have I not seen those same critiques for Marc Bulger from you? You say there are deficiencies in his game, how about sharing some of those with us Nick, instead of always defending this guy.

    Certainly someone has said something critical of Marc Bulger that you agree with, right? How about sharing that with us.

    And yes, I am intelligent enough to know that it's an insult to all of our intelligence to see this guy who has lead us nowhere fast, being defended week-in and week-out as if he's Kurt Warner of 2000 or something. The first 2games I defended him, because I thought he did as well as he could with the ability he has.

    He is not Joe Montana, Dan marino, Brett Favre, John Elway, Tom Brady, Peyton or Eli Manning. Heck, I would argue that he's not even Marc Bulger.

    But he's defended on this board like he's the Pope or somebody.

    Yet some Bulger defenders can't wait to criticize his replacement as if somehow it justifies him stinking it up for going on 3 straight years now.

    It doesn't.
    Suggesting I've never criticized Marc Bulger is pretty inaccurate, plain and simple.

    If you were in the chatroom for the Washington game, you would have heard me criticize Marc for two poor passes/decisions on the Rams' first drive of the third quarter. On second down, the Redskins dropped a defensive lineman into coverage, and Marc simply didn't see him. He threw to a short route going over the middle of the field, essentially right to the lineman. Thankfully the ball was only batted down. On the following third down, if memory serves me, I believe Bulger overthrew McMichael on the right side of the field. Even if McMichael makes the catch, it's short of a first down. I was critical of Marc on both plays. As you've pointed out though, there hasn't been much else to be critical of regarding those two games, as Bulger has played about as well as he could given the circumstances.

    But even if you go back prior to those two games, it isn't hard to find areas where I've criticized Marc. Days before the Rams' first game, I said this of Bulger in a thread you participated in...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    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.

    Two weeks before that, agreeing with someone else's criticism...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I agree that Boller is a better athlete than Bulger and better able to make plays using his legs. I would also agree that, over the last two seasons, Bulger's confidence in the pocket has diminished and he's not as likely as he used to be to stand in there and take a brutal hit.

    In late August, when responding to a thread asking for opinions on how Bulger would do this season...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    If protected, he will be solid and generally efficient.
    "Solid and generally efficient." Wow, I was really laying it on thick there with the praise, huh?

    Continuing in the same thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    If he doesn't rebound to have a solid year in 2009, the Rams may have to cut bait in 2010 if he won't renegotiate.

    I agree with you he's on the downside of his career, but I don't think that means he can't still be efficient. Just that his best days are probably behind him. In the right situation, I think he can still produce and do well. I'm anxious to see how he does in this offensive system.

    Heck, let's go back to the end of last season...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    The reality of the NFL is that you HAVE to help out your quarterback. You also have to get good play out of the QB position, which we're not getting now. So Bulger certainly has to improve if he's going to play here for longer than another year, but we have to face the fact that we need pieces around our QB if we want him to succeed. I don't care if it's Bulger or the next guy we bring in here. If we don't surround that person with talent that can help achieve the success, then we're going to get the same result we're seeing now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Obviously he needs to see the field better, that I agree with.

    I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. The examples are there for anyone interested in actually looking at them. For those more interested in just making sweeping generalizations of the other side of this debate and looping anyone they can into those generalizations to make them look unreasonable or biased, then there was no point in even listing examples in the first place, as such a person's mind was probably already made up regardless of what the facts were.

    Now, hopefully you're done trying to call me out so this thread can get back on topic.

  15. #30
    bigredman's Avatar
    bigredman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    El Paso, Texas
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: Bulger may play Sunday

    I think the Boller and Bulger camps are missing the one constant in this debate, and that is the offense design and play calling. Both Boller and Bulger have shown flashes of success, but the majority of their play usually ends up disappointing. Why? Our coaching doesn't build on the successes of what works with our offense.

    The two drives with Boller in the GB game were product of essentially the same mixture of run and pass (mostly pass to medium range routes) that marched us down and scored. Then we suddenly went Jackson left, Jackson right, Jackson up the middle. It was great for Jackson padding his yards stats, but resulted in no points. That interception late in the game was nothing more than Boller desperately trying to make something happen. He took a risk and it backfired. My point is that the mistake was the by-product of poor play calling preceding it after we last scored.

    Same is true with Bulger. The week before the drive that resulted in Bulger throwing a touchdown pass was a thing of beauty, and then nothing the rest of the game. You will see Marc chew up yards when given the chance, only to stall in the red zone most times because of questionable play call. Then Marc will inevitably throw that drive killing pick much like Boller did trying to make something happen late in the game.

    Both Boller and Bulger have been hampered by not having much time to gel with our first unit receivers (which continue to change constantly due to injury). Bulger is the more accurate passer, but needs more time in the pocket (something our offensive line cannot give him currently). Boller is more mobile and can make things happen by scrambling out of the pocket to throw or taking off down field to keep drives alive.

    Boller is our better option presently given the state of our offensive line, but I am less and less impressed with our offensive coordinator's job with this offense as each game passes. Maybe our criticism of the QB's is misdirected?
    Last edited by bigredman; -10-02-2009 at 11:16 AM.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Jim Thomas Chat - Sept 15
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -09-16-2009, 12:32 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: -10-19-2008, 11:57 AM
  3. Jim Thomas Live: 12/11/07
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -12-11-2007, 07:59 PM
  4. Linehan/Player Quotes
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -10-04-2007, 11:52 AM
  5. Thomas Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -09-19-2007, 01:06 PM

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
  •