Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45
  1. #16
    lakerams Guest

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

    Nick-

    explain this to me. who's fault was it that Bulger missed a wide open Holt for a TD in the Carolina game.

    let me guess. it's the RB's fault. or the O-line maybe. maybe it was Carolina's defense that's to blame for leaving Holt so wide open.

    or maybe, just maybe, it's the QB's fault for missing the receiver.


  2. #17
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,509
    Rep Power
    167

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

    The funny thing is that I've read posts by those inclined to rip Holt that said it was a perfect pass.

    I guess its all in the lie of the beholder.

  3. #18
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    It seems as though you are glossing over his faults, making excuses for him when it's really not that big a deal.
    I'm not glossing over anything. What I'm doing is looking at a situation and saying, "Maybe it's more than just this one guy's fault. Maybe the other 21 guys on the field have some kind of role in it as well."

    I'm not saying Bulger is really a perfect passer on deep passes, but look at his interception total. Is that because his passes are so off target, or is that because the defense can afford to have extra men in coverage because they don't need those players in run support?

    There's more to consider than just Marc Bulger's skill. Considering he's been effective in this area in the past, it seems pretty odd to just say he can't do it. Yet even in this post, you continue to ignore even the possibility that other aspects of the game might have had an effect on Bulger's long ball. It's ridiculous.
    Last edited by Nick; -06-19-2004 at 01:17 AM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #19
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lakerams
    Nick-

    explain this to me. who's fault was it that Bulger missed a wide open Holt for a TD in the Carolina game.

    let me guess. it's the RB's fault. or the O-line maybe. maybe it was Carolina's defense that's to blame for leaving Holt so wide open.

    or maybe, just maybe, it's the QB's fault for missing the receiver.
    Or maybe it was Holt's fault for not making the catch?

    I think you can make a case either way. The ball wasn't right over his shoulder, but if I remember correctly, Holt had a hand on it or at least could have based on the distance. It clearly wasn't completely out of reach. Personally, I would have expected a player who's nicknamed "Big Game" to make that kind of catch. But maybe that's just me.

    If you're expecting every deep pass to be perfectly positioned right over the shoulder, then chances are you're expecting too much.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  5. #20
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,509
    Rep Power
    167

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

    OH YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well....

    Well...

    HE'S NO KURT WARNER!!!!!!!!!!!!


    (I mean, after all, isn't what this is all really about?)

  6. #21
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,287
    Rep Power
    127

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

    Av - in reality, Bulger is certainly no Kurt Warner when it comes to the deep ball. NO WAY. Short dumps, intermediate outs and slants, yes, but the touch is just NOT there on bombs away. You know that.

    Nick - Your boy can't throw the deep ball, bottom line. Spin it any way you want, all your exuses won't change the fact that Bulger does not have the touch. Don't try and blame it on other players, Bulger needs to improve in that area. The pass to Holt against Carolina was OVER THROWN. He missed his reciever and must bear the burden of his shortcomings. NO EXCUSES.

    If you have a problem with what I'm saying, maybe someone will back you up, but I don't see how that can happen 'cause it's pretty evident that most agree that young Marc needs work on his deep throws.

    The good thing is, if Martz see's Bulger's limitations, he can alter the offense and we'll be just fine. I have no doubt that Bulger can be successful if the offense is tailored to his strengths as opposed to his weaknesses.

    I have every confidence in Marc Bulger.

  7. #22
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,582
    Rep Power
    58

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    OH YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well....

    Well...

    HE'S NO KURT WARNER!!!!!!!!!!!!


    (I mean, after all, isn't what this is all really about?)

    Well I am not sure what this is really about, but whatever we do, let's not create another Kurt Warner saga. By that I mean, every player makes mistakes. So let's try to acknowledge Bulger's good points and bad points.

    Now, what about Jake Delhomme? That guy can huck it....LOL

    :tongue:

  8. #23
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

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

    As I said before Mike -- and apparently you missed -- I'm not arguing that Bulger is perfect on the long ball. He needs to work on his deep throws, particularly the timing because he does have the arm. But as Peter King pointed out in his article, there are very few quarterbacks who are consistently accurate above 35 yards. Bulger isn't consistent on those throws, but to imply this offense is tailored toward these passes (which you did by saying, "Bulger can be successful if the offense is tailored to his strengths as opposed to his weaknesses") is not true. Bulger threw 14 attempts over 40 yards. That's hardly having an offense tailored to this weakness, considering those passes make up less than three percent of all his passes.

    Regardless, what I'm saying is that other players can affect the result of a play, and that opposing defenses probably would not be able to keep as many defenders playing the pass if the Rams running game was effective. Obviously defenses aren't giving the Rams single man to man coverage on every deep pass Bulger has thrown. There's been extra help back there because defenses don't need to use that personnel stopping a weakened Rams running attack, and that extra help in coverage makes it even harder to complete an already difficult pass. To me, that seems like a pretty logical statement. Yet in six responses since I brought this up, you've continually ignore it and not even mentioned it in passing, let alone addressed it as a possible reason for Marc's struggling.

    It's interesting how a lack of efficient running game is just an "excuse" when Bulger struggles, yet whenever people point to some of Kurt's less efficient performances, the role of teammates, defenses, and even the coach is always stressed first and foremost. I guess it's too much to ask that the same logic be applied to Marc. I should have known better.

    Avenger was absolutely right, in my opinion. What this seems to boil down to is that Marc Bulger is not Kurt Warner, and since he's not -- or worse yet, since he's the guy replacing Warner -- he's going to get a raw deal from some people. In this case, he's being blamed entirely for problems that he's only a part of, just like he was blamed for his supposed red zone inefficiency. Whenever I asked for specific limitations after showing his fairly impressive TD/INT ratio, you went completely silent, apparently incapable of backing up your accusation. And now, you refuse to even recognize the logical alternate causes for deep ball problems I've brought up, labelling them as mere "excuses" to gloss over Bulger's problems -- something I clearly haven't done. So excuse me if I'm not exactly buying into you having any kind of confidence in this player.

    Of course I don't think Bulger is amazing on deep patterns. But to blame one player for something that happens on a field of 22 is ridiculous any way you spell it. I see no point in arguing with someone who has already been judge and jury and has ruled Bulger alone to be responsible. It's really pretty sad...
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  9. #24
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,582
    Rep Power
    58

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

    I think most people remember the long passes that Bulger threw when the receiver was wide open and Bulger simply made a bad throw. There are several of these that stick out in my memory. So, taking that into account, it is hard to buy into the other factors that you point out as being the cause to the lack of success on many of Bulger's long passes. The passing game overall, Yes, but the long throws that he simply missed on, No. Pressure is another consideration and I can't recall whether or not Bulger was heavily pressured on those long throws that he missed.



  10. #25
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

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

    I'm gonna have to side with Mike on this one. I didn't get any kind of hint of a comparison to ANY qb much less Kurt Warner in his argument. Bulger's long ball wasn't particularly accurate last year. That has nothing to do with KW or anything else. All that has to do with is Bulger and once the ball is in the air.

    Are there other circumstances involved with a long ball being completed? Yes, but none that are unique to Bulger and the Rams. Every other qb in the league has to deal with the same thing so why bring all of that up? All that Bulger's being criticized for is his inaccuracy down the field on long throws.

    More than his long throws, I think he needs to work on his short throws as crazy as that seems. A long throw is like a punt. Worst case scenario, the other team gets the ball 40 or 50 yards down the field. That's really not such a horrible thing. It's not good, but it's not the end of the world either. Like some others have said, an improvement by Bulger (accuracy/reads) on 1st and 2nd down would help the Rams offense greatly. He had many poor swing passes to Faulk as well as one-hoppers that put the offense in 3rd and long situations. Eventually that's going to catch up with you. I could see Bulger being really successful in the Brady led offense in New England. The Rams might actually have to adopt that sort of offense if the running game continues to struggle. It's just a west coast type of thing but proved to be very effective for the Pat's over the last few years.

    Maybe that's why I hate the Pat's so much. Not only did they beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, they stole our offense and run it better than we do. Think of all the multi-receiver, empty backfield sets that NE runs. It's exactly what the Rams are supposed to be doing, and the Pat's are able to run it in any kind of weather against the toughest teams in the league.

  11. #26
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,287
    Rep Power
    127

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

    OK Nick, I give you credit for stamina. We can go back and forth on this forever, with little or no agreement which is fine with me. If you and Av want to make this a Warner against Bulger thread, what can I do?

    Since you don't agree that Martz will have to alter his schemes if Bulger can't become proficient at throwing the long ball, we'll just have to put the discussion on hold and see what happens this year. I think it is pretty clear that Martz should not rely on the deep passing game if Bulger, for whatever reason, can't make it work. A bad pass down field is a bad pass down field. Missing an open reciever is missing an open reciever. If that's not your strength, DON'T DO IT.

    I guess in the end, it's OK to knock excuses in defense of Warner and use excuses in defense of Bulger.

    The good thing for Bulger is that he will get the chance to prove what he can or can't do. You can "buy" into it or not, it really doesn't matter to me, but I have complete confidence that Bulger can get the job done. Deal with it dude, I'm a Bulger supporter.

    As always Nick, you add to the experience here. ClanRam is a more interesting place with you around. Keep it up.

  12. #27
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Well, I think the main point is that we all agree that we'd like to see Marc get more efficient on his deep passes. I don't think anyone is saying that his deep ball is fine, but I hope that you all understand what I'm trying to do. To me, blaming Marc entirely for the deep ball problems is as ridiculous as blaming Faulk or Bruce entirely for their drop in production. There are more factors that go into those situations just as I firmly believe there are more factors that go into Marc's deep passes than just him.

    I don't think Martz is or has relied on the deep ball as you claim, Mike. And while there have been instances where Marc has simply made bad throws -- again, something I never denied -- I still believe that a more efficient running game would force defenses to take some of their men out of coverage and free things up for the deep ball. Furthermore, let's take into consideration that Marc Bulger has never had an entire spring/summer offseason to work with the first team and get his timing down. Hopefully this offseason will allow him to do just that, because it seems unrealistic to expect him to perfect his timing with first team guys in weekly practices during the regular season.

    Frankly though, it's pretty disheartening as both a Rams fan and a Bulger fan to see so many negative opinions posted about him, and I feel like I see a lot of that here by some of the people in this thread. I don't think I've glossed over Bulger's negatives, as you put it Mike, but I feel like a number of you are glossing over his positives. Perhaps we can both work toward some sort of middle ground. It was never my intention to make this a Warner vs Bulger thread. My point in bringing up Kurt as a response to Avenger was that it seemed that some, not just you, were from my perspective being a bit unfair to Marc, and that might stem from an admiration or high opinion of the man he replaced. That was my point there, and honestly, I think that's the case in a lot of discussions.

    I just want what's best for this team, and I want what's best for these players. And I don't think all the criticism of Marc has been accurate, just like all the criticism of Kurt hasn't been. I suppose what I'm asking for is an objective and balanced opinion for all of our players from all of us, because that's what I hope I've been giving and I think that's what they deserve. But most importantly, they deserve our support. So you'll have to pardon me if I tend to focus on the positives before the negatives, and emphasize what was done right before what was done wrong. Because when the Rams return to the Super Bowl and win their second trophy, I don't want the trip to be filled with memories of what went wrong or what could have been done better but rather memories of how great the season has been and how our team worked together and each played their role in being one of the best in the league.

    Okay, rant over.
    Last edited by Nick; -06-19-2004 at 05:34 AM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  13. #28
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,582
    Rep Power
    58

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

    First of all I want to thank you for sharing your feelings Nick. As far as I am concerned these are the best posts. I really don't think there are cliques here, at least I don't try and view it that way or be a part of anything like that. I have had plenty of disagreements with mokler and other avid Warner guys. When mike first came to the old board I tested him as well. I think most of us are opinionated and mature enough to keep cliques from forming. I was not trying to gang up on you and my only intent was to try and speak to both sides of the debate. I probably didn't do a very good job of that and for that I apologize, but that was my intent. Nick I really do like you and you seem to be a great Rams fan and I consider you to be an asset to our ClanRam. Warner is gone and I made my peace with that long before June, 1st. Bulger is now the Rams QB and I will criticize him in a fair and objective manner, regardless of anything Kurt ever did.

    I have said many times that I am not or never have been a Warnerite. I don't think anyone really believes me so I really don't care anymore. I have been a Rams fan for too many years and have seen too many players come and go to get too emotionally attached to any of them. I admired KW simply for his warrior like efforts, on the field, as a Ram. The avatar simply depicts a moment in time for me. It is the culmination of years of being a Rams fan and finally getting to see our team raise the Lombardi. I can't say enough or even put into words what that trophy means to me as a Rams fan. I think back to all the heartaches as a young boy and the continuing heartaches on through my adult years. The 99 season and the susequent victory in SB34 put a final dagger into all those years of frustration. That moment in time, of Kurt raising the Lombardi, is something I will never forget and will cherish for the rest of my days. I'm glad that everyone didn't have to go through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as a Rams fan. Trust me you're probably better off, but if you did, then you will more than likely understand how crazy I seem to be when it comes to our beloved Rams.

  14. #29
    ramstiles's Avatar
    ramstiles is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    surrey, england,
    Age
    60
    Posts
    757
    Rep Power
    16

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

    I would have preferred Warner but hes gone comparing bulger to warner is fruitless Bulger's our guy and lets hope he improves his deep ball which is suspect lets hope the running game is better than last year and that brings the backs a bit further forward to open up the deep pass and because bulger has improved holt catches it

    and on to the SUPERBOWL we go

    a bit like everetts pass to flipper at NYG

  15. #30
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    First of all I want to thank you for sharing your feelings Nick. As far as I am concerned these are the best posts. I really don't think there are cliques here, at least I don't try and view it that way or be a part of anything like that. I have had plenty of disagreements with mokler and other avid Warner guys. When mike first came to the old board I tested him as well. I think most of us are opinionated and mature enough to keep cliques from forming. I was not trying to gang up on you and my only intent was to try and speak to both sides of the debate. I probably didn't do a very good job of that and for that I apologize, but that was my intent. Nick I really do like you and you seem to be a great Rams fan and I consider you to be an asset to our ClanRam. Warner is gone and I made my peace with that long before June, 1st. Bulger is now the Rams QB and I will criticize him in a fair and objective manner, regardless of anything Kurt ever did.
    I'm glad to hear that, and I'll do my best to emphasize the positive and negative of Bulger and other players as well. I'm sure I didn't do a stellar job of it throughout this thread, but then again, my original post was made to play off of Bulger's inconsistent deep ball to begin with.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    I have said many times that I am not or never have been a Warnerite. I don't think anyone really believes me so I really don't care anymore. I have been a Rams fan for too many years and have seen too many players come and go to get too emotionally attached to any of them. I admired KW simply for his warrior like efforts, on the field, as a Ram. The avatar simply depicts a moment in time for me. It is the culmination of years of being a Rams fan and finally getting to see our team raise the Lombardi. I can't say enough or even put into words what that trophy means to me as a Rams fan. I think back to all the heartaches as a young boy and the continuing heartaches on through my adult years. The 99 season and the susequent victory in SB34 put a final dagger into all those years of frustration. That moment in time, of Kurt raising the Lombardi, is something I will never forget and will cherish for the rest of my days. I'm glad that everyone didn't have to go through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as a Rams fan. Trust me you're probably better off, but if you did, then you will more than likely understand how crazy I seem to be when it comes to our beloved Rams.
    It's great that after so long the Rams were finally able to reward their fans for the loyalty they presented. I think we all share a great sense of gratitude and pride toward Warner and the '99 Rams for what they accomplished, and hopefully this year's squad can accomplish similar if not greater feats.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •