Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45
  1. #1
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    In an article titled "As the quarterback turns," Peter King made a point about a Warner/Kitna comparison that I think provides a good perspective on Marc Bulger. Follow me here.

    King is asked, "Do you think Eli Manning will sit on the bench with the Giants like last year's No. 1 overall pick, Carson Palmer, did with the Bengals in 2003?"

    And in response, he says, "If Kurt Warner plays as well as Jon Kitna did last year in Cincinnati, Warner could be the quarterback for 16 weeks. People forget that Kitna was an excellent QB last year. He had better numbers across the board than Tom Brady did. When people look at Kitna, they look at his weaknesses. He's not real good throwing the ball 35 yards down the field. He's not consistently accurate at that distance. There aren't a lot of guys in the NFL who are. If that were a minimal requirement for NFL quarterbacks, than Donovan McNabb would be a second-stringer. In New York, it's all dependent on whether Warner is going to be the quarterback he was a few years ago, or if he's going to be the injured, unconfident, very marginal backup quarterback.

    I remember on another forum, there was a fairly long debate about how Marc needed to get better with his deep ball. Howard and Barry both seemed to respond by saying the deep ball wasn't as important as some would have you believe, and it sounds as if Peter King is making the same point here in that there aren't a tremendous number of QBs who are great at it, and QBs can still be effective without it.

    Go with this where you will, but when I saw this article and this perspective from an SI writer, I thought it would be worthwhile to post.

    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  2. #2
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    I'm not so worried about Bulger's long ball as it is only used maybe once or twice a game. I would like to see him get better on first and second down though.

    To me, that's much more important.

  3. #3
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,093
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    I think the system has a lot to do with what is needed from a quarterback. Much has been made about the deep ball not being important, which is fine if you don't plan on making that a part of an offensive scheme.

    IMO, Mike Martz likes the deep ball and likes to use it in certain situations to open things up, stretch the field and make quick strikes. If he plans to tone things down, go with a more ball-control oriented approach and depend on the defense to help keep games in check, there is no need to worry about Bulger's deep throw accuracy.

    On the other hand, if Martz is still enamored with the deep game, Bulger needs to be able to execute it or there will be no threat and opposing defenses won't respect it, creating an environment for turnovers. Something that Bulger needs to improve on.

  4. #4
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Yes, it's all Bulger's fault, isn't it Mike? :bored:

    It's amazing how some people will make every excuse imaginable when Warner falters, but in Marc's case, it's all on his shoulders.

    To say defenses don't respect the deep pass when facing Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and the NFC's leading passer in terms of total yards seems rather ridiculous, does it not? I think it's because of their respect for the deep ball that's made it harder to succeed with.

    I think that it'd be much easier to hit those passes when defenses aren't allowed to sit back there in coverage. Why are they allowed to do that? Because our running game isn't as effective as it used to be. If we can force defenders to devote additional personnel to run support, we should be able to open up more opportunities in the air.

    Yes, Bulger needs to make an attempt here or there, but also keep in mind that Manning threw only five passes over 40 yards last season. Did defenses thus not respect Manning's arm? I highly doubt it.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  5. #5
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,051
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    The Martz offense has never revolved around the deep ball. Rather, its "bread and butter" is the 15-20 yard crossing pattern. Bulger throws that pass very effectively.

  6. #6
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,093
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Yes, it's all Bulger's fault, isn't it Mike?
    I'm at a loss here, what did I say was Bulger's fault?

  7. #7
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    On the other hand, if Martz is still enamored with the deep game, Bulger needs to be able to execute it or there will be no threat and opposing defenses won't respect it, creating an environment for turnovers. Something that Bulger needs to improve on.
    Seems to imply that if Martz wants to use the deep ball, it's Marc that needs to get better at it. Nevermind that he looked pretty good with deep passes in 2002. Nevermind that the defense doesn't need to devote extra personnel to run support since our running game is so poor, thus allowing them to put extra men in coverage and take away options through the air. Nevermind that there was so much defensive holding and illegal contact going on last season that the league finally decided to do something about it coming into this year. You seem to be putting the entire weight of our deep pass problems on Marc's shoulders rather than looking at other alternative reasons as to why we've had problems with the deep pass. It's a rather tiring approach, having to defend a young QB against fans who at times go out of their way to try and emphasize his problems.

    I guess it's now too much to expect the other points of my post to be addressed. I would hope that's not the case.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  8. #8
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,093
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    It's pretty common knowledge that Marc Bulger is not overly effective when it comes to the deep ball. If he's not, he's not. If the offense needs to be altered to account for his shortcomings, so be it. As long as we score points and keep turnovers to a minimum, I'm OK with Bulger's inability to throw the ball deep. Believe it or not, I have faith that Bulger can be effective if used the right way. That depends on Martz.

    And yes, I was implying that if Martz want's to use the deep ball, it is Marc that needs to get better at it. That or don't use it.

  9. #9
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    He does need to get better mike....I'll give you that one. I do believe Curtis being healthy will extremely help the deep ball also. The lack of a running game did hurt, but the lack of a speedy 3 WR hurt more in my opinion.

    That being said, he does need to improve on that. Best thing about this? He knows it and has been working on it.

  10. #10
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    It's pretty common knowledge that Marc Bulger is not overly effective when it comes to the deep ball. If he's not, he's not. If the offense needs to be altered to account for his shortcomings, so be it. As long as we score points and keep turnovers to a minimum, I'm OK with Bulger's inability to throw the ball deep. Believe it or not, I have faith that Bulger can be effective if used the right way. That depends on Martz.

    And yes, I was implying that if Martz want's to use the deep ball, it is Marc that needs to get better at it. That or don't use it.
    It's common knowledge that Bulger wasn't effective last season with the deep ball, but the fact that you fail to acknowledge alternate reasons as to why that might be seems to be rather ridiculous and narrow minded. Instead, you put it all on Marc's shoulders. You said it yourself: "Bulger's inability," "his shortcomings," etc etc.

    So like I said, it's all Bulger's fault, right? :bored:

    It's amazing the lengths some people will go to bash this guy, unwilling to even consider for a second that something isn't his fault. I'm not saying that he's performing perfectly, but what I'm trying to get at is that perhaps, in a game where 21 other guys are on the field, maybe Bulger isn't the only one to blame for this not being as effective as it could be. I don't think that's a ridiculous or baseless claim to make.
    Last edited by Nick; -06-18-2004 at 02:55 PM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  11. #11
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,093
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Did it ever cross the mind of those who can't get over Warner's departure that those of us who have been labeled "Bulgerites" are, in fact, aware of his faults and his mistakes, do not seek to gloss over them, but nonetheless think he is the best man available for the job of the Rams' QB?
    Nick, you saw this right?

  12. #12
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Nick, you saw this right?
    No, what thread is it in?
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  13. #13
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,093
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    It's in the infamous "Rams’ Martz knew Bulger would be special" thread, posted by none other than our friend AvengerRam. Thought it might be relevant in our discussion.

  14. #14
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,875
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    It's in the infamous "Rams’ Martz knew Bulger would be special" thread, posted by none other than our friend AvengerRam. Thought it might be relevant in our discussion.
    How is it relevant?

    In the quote, Avenger's asking the Warner loyalists if they ever thought that maybe we're aware of Marc's faults and aren't trying to ignore them but feel he's the best guy regardless. The statement says we're aware of the problems but still put our faith behind him because we feel he offers the best chance for the team to win.

    So no, I can't say I'm seeing how that's related to you ignoring other key factors that could have contributed to problems with the deep ball and instead place all the blame on Marc's shoulders.

    It sounds as if you think quoting this post from another thread is going to bring about some sort of revelation in the current discussion. I can't say I'm seeing it... maybe you could elaborate?
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  15. #15
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,093
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: An interesting tidbit from a Peter King article (Bulger related)

    It seems as though you are glossing over his faults, making excuses for him when it's really not that big a deal. So he can't effectively throw the deep ball, so what. He doesn't quite have the touch, doesn't quite have the ability to make it a threat, does not have the timing down, just accept it.

    I don't think you will find many in this forum that would make the case that Bulger is going to cause much concern to opposing defenses when it comes to the deep game. As Tx stated earlier, it's more important that he get better on first and second down. As Av stated, he is effective at the intermediate game, so if he can't show the apptitude for going deep, work with his strengths.

    Your defense of Bulger is admirable. My intent was not to slam him, but put his limitations in perspective and make the point that as long as Martz uses him the right way, the deep ball problems should not be an issue.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bulger Headed for Big Year
    By Rambos in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-26-2006, 10:34 AM
  2. Bulger Focusing on the Future
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-21-2006, 07:25 AM
  3. Linehan Believes Bulger is Among the Best
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -08-05-2006, 05:39 AM
  4. Bulger Healthy, Happy with New Staff
    By .ramfan. in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -02-16-2006, 11:37 PM
  5. Salary Cap Request
    By HUbison in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -12-31-2004, 02:48 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
  •