Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By AvengerRam
  • 1 Post By Goldenfleece
  • 1 Post By fearsome foursome
  • 1 Post By AvengerRam
  • 1 Post By jmk321

Thread: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated here.

  1. #1
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated here.

    Since someone keeps posting potentially controversial polls (oh, wait...that was me), I thought I'd look back at some the most controversial debates that have raged here at the Clan, and note the hindsight "correct" answer to each key issue.

    Should the Rams move on from Kurt Warner to Marc Bulger?
    CORRECT ANSWER: NO
    At the time, the decision seemed reasonable. Warner's play had diminished along with his health, and Marc Bulger came on like gangbusters. In the long run, though, those who wished to make the change (and yes, I was among them), underestimated Kurt. He regained his form and lead the Cardinals to a Super Bowl. While it is not entirely unfair to suggest that he would not have lasted in the min-protect Martz offense, I propose this: what if the Rams had cashed in the Bulger chip like the Falcons did with Matt Shaub and the Eagles did with Kevin Kolb? We'll never know.

    Should the Rams fire Mike Martz?
    CORRECT ANSWER: YES
    I think the Rams made the right decision for the wrong reason when it came to Martz. His post-Rams history shows that, while he has a great offensive mind, he is not a leader, nor is he flexible enough to deal with the hard times. He was let go by egomaniacs who were far more incompetent than he was, but it was the right decision.

    Should the Rams move on from Marshall Faulk to Steven Jackson?
    CORRECT ANSWER: YES
    SJax will never be Marshall Faulk. Nobody is suggesting that he will be. But, at the time the Rams made this move, Faulk was no longer Faulk. Jackson, on the other hand, has been extremely productive, and more of a leader than anyone imagined he could be when he as drafted.

    Should the Rams fire Scott Linehan?
    CORRECT ANSWER: YES
    SLOP was over-the-top, a bit premature, and unquestionably antagonistic. It was also dead on right. The only thing worse than Linehan's tenure was the mess he left behind when he departed.

    Should the Rams acquire Michael Vick?
    CORRECT ANSWER: NO
    Vick has played better in Philadelphia than most expected he'd ever play again, but had he been here, he would not have survived. The Rams simply don't have the Eagles weopons or its offensive line, and Vick would not have been able to take the punishment he would have received here. More importantly, this year demonstrated that Vick, for all his highlight film plays, does not guarantee success.

    Should the Rams draft Bradford or Suh?
    CORRECT ANSWER: BRADFORD
    Some will likely assert that the jury is out on this one, but I'm comfortable saying that Bradford gives me more hope for the Rams' future than Suh would. While Suh was outstanding as a rookie, this year his productivity went down and his fines went up. He'll need to prove this year that he's on the Ngata/Wilfork track, rather than the Haynesworth path.

    Some day, we'll look back at today's biggest controversy: will the Rams move out of St. Louis? Some think that is Stan Kroenke's endgame. I, for one, do not. Please do not respond with comments on this debate, I'm only mentioning for posterity. Instead, I suggest that you look at the list above and consider whether you've been off the mark before as you opine on today's issues.
    Rammed likes this.


  2. #2
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,296
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    While Bradford and Suh both had sophomore slumps, I'm still siding with Bradford by a landslide.

    Suh is a punk. I have no respect for him after he slammed the guys helmet on the turf and then preceded to stomp him as he got up. I could've gotten over that as being a "heat of the moment" act, but the explanation he gave after the game was PATHETIC.

    I always like'd Suh even as a dirty player until I listen to that explanation that was completely bogus.

    Besides, Bradford is our QB of the future and has proven he can play at a high level.

  3. #3
    QUINNtessentialTruth's Avatar
    QUINNtessentialTruth is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,204
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    When Bulger replaced Warner, I was living in Missouri. I remember how much in the minority I was when I was the only one that wanted to keep Warner and use Bulger as trade bait. Oh well, ups and downs. Went through some ridiculous season, but I like having Bradford and Jackson now so hoping for the best. No point in looking back.

    I think all the other questions you posed have the right correct answer. Suh is definitely going to be a beast. But I ALSO think Bradford will be too, put in the right system and as he matures. Bradford will be top 5 elite QB in the league in the future, mark my words

  4. #4
    live4ramin's Avatar
    live4ramin is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Missouri Low Country
    Posts
    1,446
    Rep Power
    26

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    I would include also the Adam Archeleta debate, and to a lesser degree Ryan Pickett.
    "The horror"

  5. #5
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    I disagree with the answer to the first one, and I'm among those who think the jury is still out on the last one, but the ones in the middle I agree completely with.

  6. #6
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    Yeah, the first one is debatable. Kurt is one of my all-time favorite Rams, but from 2004-2006, he wasn't even a full-time starter for the teams he played for while Marc was among the top quarterbacks in the league. Then Warner regained his form from 2007-2009 as Bulger lost his. Warner peaking again just as Bruce and Holt's skills declined to the point we were ready to part with them would have been less than ideal. I will agree that whether we kept Warner and tried to deal Bulger or vice versa, probably the least helpful solution was to sign Warner to a huge contract that would make him untradeable and then not deal Bulger. The fact that we managed to still lose in a win-win situation is a reminder about just how bad the front office was at the time.

    I think the Vick point is still debatable, too. I'm willing to say it was the right move on principle alone, but strategically, if we had picked him up, we could have started him while Bradford learned the ropes, and if he did have a banner year, we could trade him away to a team that felt it was a quarterback away from being a contender while feeling confident that Bradford was ready to lead us into the future.

    Finally, on Bradford vs. Suh, Sam needs to take it to the next level for this to be a closed case. Right now, despite Suh's ugly reputation, he is still among the elite players at his position based on his play on the field to date. Bradford is not...yet.

    That's all to say that often the answer to a controversial question isn't black and white even years later.
    jmk321 likes this.

  7. #7
    fearsome foursome is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    311
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    Just as I suspected. I'm always right. Thanks AV for confirming it. Please tell my wife. (ps nice thread)
    Nick likes this.

  8. #8
    bcrox123 Guest

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    how about this one, should the rams draft a rb to start replacing sj39? yes

  9. #9
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    Quote Originally Posted by bcrox123 View Post
    how about this one, should the rams draft a rb to start replacing sj39? yes
    How is that controversial? I don't think you understood the point of the thread.
    THOLTFAN81 likes this.

  10. #10
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,312
    Rep Power
    109

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    I was never sold on Bulger. I still feel like we should have stuck with Warner.

    How's it go....for better or worse? Through thick and thin?

  11. #11
    jmk321's Avatar
    jmk321 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    albany
    Posts
    591
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    Kurt had to go through a lot of changes as a QB from the time he left the Rams until his success with the Cardinals. Kurt himself has said this and after the team won 13 games and was the best NFC regular season team with Bulger in 2003 there would have been no logic in keeping Kurt and getting rid of Bulger. It is hard to imagine Kurt continuing to have success on the Rams if he stayed in St. Louis and the problems with Bulger seemed less to do with him and more with the poor coaching and personell decisions.

    Aside from that I mostly agree with everything.
    Nick likes this.

  12. #12
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,712
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: In hindsight, the correct answers to the most controversial questions debated her

    I was one who believed we made the right move in moving on from Warner to Bulger.

    Based on Bulger's initial success after taking over the team, and the fact that Warner was not fully recovered from his thumb injury when the decision needed to be made.

    Made sense to me, in spite of the fact that I never thought much of Bulger.

Similar Threads

  1. Bradford answers questions
    By Bralidore(RAMMODE) in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: -04-01-2010, 09:30 PM
  2. CBA-Related Questions & Answers
    By r8rh8rmike in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-22-2010, 10:28 PM
  3. We've got questions -- will Linehan have answers?
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -01-19-2006, 05:11 PM
  4. Questions and Answers with Joe Vitt.
    By psycho9985 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-17-2005, 10:43 AM
  5. 10 Questions (and a few answers) about the Rams
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -08-29-2004, 10:34 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
  •