Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    ramhard's Avatar
    ramhard is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    US
    Posts
    454
    Rep Power
    13

    Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    I'm tired of all these solid players on D. The Rams need playmakers - period. It doesn't matter if they are an inch short (see Freeney or Jue or Pisa for that matter for reference) or slow. The Rams D doesn't have enough playmakers. Little can do so, but not by himself. For all his criticism, Arch can make plays but is wildly inconsistent. Pisa makes plays but doesn't get enough internal protection. Tyoka is a playmaker but at the end of his time in the NFL. I would draft and trade purely on that one trait, guys with a history of making big plays.

    I wonder how much LaVar Arrington has left for next year?


  2. #2
    rampete is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Posts
    654
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    arrington doesn't have much cartilage in his knees...

    but i agree, the rams defense is soarly missing leadership and playmakers...

    the rams were in trouble the minute bulger got hurt but could've made it a lot closer in the end if the defense didn't quit on those last four colt drives...i saw emotionally drained defensive players playing with no hope nor desire after the colts made it 31 to 20...

  3. #3
    Large_Ant's Avatar
    Large_Ant is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    In fairness to the Rams players, I honestly believe that this one sits with the front office. IMO, the Rams were going to win this game until Marc Bulger went down. No problem because surely the front office has upgraded from the bum that had no clue three years ago when Bulger went down against the Seahawks, right? Right?

    Jamie Martin should be arrested for impersonating an NFL QB. The Rams front office should have drafted and trained a backup or signed a capable replacement ages ago. Hell, I can think of five QBs that are currently sitting on couches (speaking of Couch) that look like perennial pro bowlers next to Martin.

    The Rams offense was rolling and the defense was doing well enough. While the Rams have their defensive issues right now, they probably wouldn't have gotten rolled on like that if Martin hadn't given them the ball on back to back drives inside the 30. Combine that with the Steven Jackson fumble and you've got at least three scoring opportunities that the Colts would not have had.

    There's no way you can say that one injury last night didn't completely change the face of that game. And when one injury can take away all chance of winning, that's on the front office for not building enough depth.

    While I obviously didn't want the Rams to win last night, I don't buy into the notion that Colts defense is so awesome and I'm disappointed that no one will remember that they got exposed last night against the first real offense they've faced all year. All people are going to remember are all they turnovers they "created" by a RB that failed to use good technique holding onto the ball and a backup QB that through passes directly to the defense.

  4. #4
    adarian_too's Avatar
    adarian_too is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Hollow
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Largent
    And when one injury can take away all chance of winning, that's on the front office for not building enough depth.
    It's pretty bad when a casual outsider can make an observation that too few want go back to.

    There is no doubt that the D has sorely needed a domineering personality and playmaker which they have yet to find for a long time now. And yes it's some what of a crap shoot how to spend money on high-priced talent ... where's Hartwell now for instance.

    But that's the point isn't it? This game is a war of attrition. Injuries are always on the next horizon. But what distinguishes teams is the ability to establish depth. You need a FO/coaching staff with an eye for talent. The budget will always be there to pay for marginal talent. The question is does the staff have an eye for talent that can produce if needed?

    Every sparkle down the depth charts has proven to be nothing more than fool's gold. If someone like Ivy sticks that's more the product of odds than acumen. It's more than coincidence that the last six years haven't produced any pro-bowlers thru the draft or FA acquitiion.

    The FO needs over-hauled just as much as anything else.

  5. #5
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,573
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    It's pretty bad when a casual outsider can make an observation that too few want go back to.
    It's not a very astute observation IMO. Do we know how good seneca wallace is? Shall we just go ahead and speculate right now that if hussle-a-buck goes down then the hawks are doomed and it's the FO's fault.

    It is just speculation that Bulger's injury kept the Rams from winning that game and then spinning it onto the FO. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the FO, I just disagree with the notion that Bulger's injury was the direct reason for the loss. Who is to say that if Bulger had stayed in the game he would not have thrown another pick or two just like the one that got him injured to begin with? And that pick in and of itself was a huge momentum swing for the colts.

    Personally, I think it was the pathetic defense and that can definately be put on the FO.



  6. #6
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,406
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    While I obviously didn't want the Rams to win last night, I don't buy into the notion that Colts defense is so awesome and I'm disappointed that no one will remember that they got exposed last night against the first real offense they've faced all year.
    You got that right the Colts D was exposed, but without Bulger like I said yesterday we would fall apart, and we did.

    Oh btw since we had our discussion on Pace and Jones I didnt hear that Freeney guys name so I guess Pace is pretty good

    I'm just razzin ya a bit ^^^^


    Jones is good too

  7. #7
    Scidog68's Avatar
    Scidog68 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Modesto, California, United States
    Age
    45
    Posts
    405
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    No way, Ferter.....Marc going down, while not fatal in and of itself, changed the whole tempo and focus of our squad. Martin is, at best, a body. Marc can snap back from a stupid int....... Martin couldn't snap if you cracked him in half.

    No Captain at the helm means no direction for the ship, eh?


    Hooah


    Win, Lose or Draw... Rams for Life!
    :football:

  8. #8
    Large_Ant's Avatar
    Large_Ant is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    You got that right the Colts D was exposed, but without Bulger like I said yesterday we would fall apart, and we did.

    Oh btw since we had our discussion on Pace and Jones I didnt hear that Freeney guys name so I guess Pace is pretty good

    I'm just razzin ya a bit ^^^^


    Jones is good too
    Never let it be said that I only call it one way...

    Orlando Pace- I love the Big Man

  9. #9
    Large_Ant's Avatar
    Large_Ant is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    It's not a very astute observation IMO. Do we know how good seneca wallace is? Shall we just go ahead and speculate right now that if hussle-a-buck goes down then the hawks are doomed and it's the FO's fault.
    The Seahawks have been pretty clear that they're taking a calculated risk this year so I'd say that if Wallace struggled, then yeah, it'd be their fault. But they haven't spent the past three years gambling at the position. The Rams FO has. This was never meant to be a "the Seahawks do it right and the Rams do it wrong" point so the comparison is kind of moot.

    It is just speculation that Bulger's injury kept the Rams from winning that game and then spinning it onto the FO. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the FO, I just disagree with the notion that Bulger's injury was the direct reason for the loss. Who is to say that if Bulger had stayed in the game he would not have thrown another pick or two just like the one that got him injured to begin with? And that pick in and of itself was a huge momentum swing for the colts.
    Well unless someone has a crystal ball, the answer to that question is of course that no one can say what would have happened. But the fact that Bulger had played very well and lumped 17 quick points on a defense that is being touted as one of the best in the league (puke, puke) with only one real mistake might be grounds for an educated guess, no?

    Personally, I think it was the pathetic defense and that can definately be put on the FO.
    No one is saying the defense played great. But it sure would have helped their confidence and stamina if their own offense hadn't put them inside of their own 30 three times inside of a very short span of time. That's enough to kill some of the best defenses in the league.

    You have a reason to be pissed about the defense but it's not like they didn't go out try to and fortify that side of the ball this offseason. But they flat out ignored the fact that if Bulger went down, they were hosed. The last time the Rams had a decent backup was when that backup was none other than Bulger. Having lost Bulger may very well run you guys out of contention for the division. You're looking at a game this week that would have flat out been a "gimme" with Bulger in the lineup and now, it'll be a contest. That can not sit well wit you.
    Last edited by Large_Ant; -10-18-2005 at 08:10 PM.

  10. #10
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,573
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    The Seahawks have been pretty clear that they're taking a calculated risk this year so I'd say that if Wallace struggled, then yeah, it'd be their fault. But they haven't spent the past three years gambling at the position. The Rams FO has. This was never meant to be a "the Seahawks do it right and the Rams do it wrong" point so the comparison is kind of moot.
    Well what better team to compare to, since you are a hawk fan? If not the hawks, then who? Maybe all the other teams in the NFL have two elite QBs at their disposal? And maybe all of them give their back-up QBs reps in every practice? I mean if you are going to criticize our FO for not having two elite QBs, with plenty of game time experience and practice under their belt, then there must be a plethora of NFL teams that do have? If not, then yes, your original statement of blaming the FO is indeed a moot point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    Well unless someone has a crystal ball, the answer to that question is of course that no one can say what would have happened. But the fact that Bulger had played very well and lumped 17 quick points on a defense that is being touted as one of the best in the league (puke, puke) with only one real mistake might be grounds for an educated guess, no?.
    Educated or not, it is still a guess or speculation, which is what I already said.


    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    No one is saying the defense played great. But it sure would have helped their confidence and stamina if their own offense hadn't put them inside of their own 30 three times inside of a very short span of time. That's enough to kill some of the best defenses in the league.
    Let's not forget the Jackson fumble which was just as crucial as the first INT thrown by a Rams QB. You can't kill something that's already dead. I'm sure you remember seeing the walking dead last week against the hawks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    But they flat out ignored the fact that if Bulger went down, they were hosed.
    I don't think they ignored the fact. They brought in a young QB the past two seasons and they signed Martin, who, at the very least, knows their complicated offense. I'm not sure what else they could have done in regards to a back-up QB.




  11. #11
    Large_Ant's Avatar
    Large_Ant is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Okay Ferter. You're talking about elite QBs and I'm talking about servicable backups. Not sure how you ended up out in left field but try to come back to the party and keep up. If you think that Jamie Martin is a servicable backup then hide and watch him for the next two weeks and see if he proves you right.

    Trent Dilfer wasn't an elite QB by any stretch of the imagination but he could win games if he was needed because of an injury to Hasselbeck. That's what a backup is supposed to do - give the team a chance when the starter is down.

    Martin gives you no chance. He's simply standing in the space until Bulger gets back. What purpose does that serve? He's a poor backup. But if you're fine with it, I'm fine with it. Like you pointed out, it's your team. Enjoy.

  12. #12
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,544
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    Okay Ferter. You're talking about elite QBs and I'm talking about servicable backups. Not sure how you ended up out in left field but try to come back to the party and keep up. If you think that Jamie Martin is a servicable backup then hide and watch him for the next two weeks and see if he proves you right.

    Trent Dilfer wasn't an elite QB by any stretch of the imagination but he could win games if he was needed because of an injury to Hasselbeck. That's what a backup is supposed to do - give the team a chance when the starter is down.

    Martin gives you no chance. He's simply standing in the space until Bulger gets back. What purpose does that serve? He's a poor backup. But if you're fine with it, I'm fine with it. Like you pointed out, it's your team. Enjoy.
    I'm not sure why, but I feel a need to defend Martin to a degree here. The guy went 17 for 21. I'll take a QB that completes 81% of his passes everytime. Some say Martin is no good because of his lack of arm strength.....well name me the last Ram QB that had good arm strength? I'll name the last two....Banks and Smoker....how'd they work out by the way?

    Martin is not my first choice for the Rams either, but with all of our money being wrapped up in Pace and our skill players, there's only so much we can hope for in our backup QB. Bash Martin, if you want, but all he did wrong were the two picks, and we've been living with those for years out of every QB we've had so I don't know why we'd single him out.

    We've managed to spoil ourselves again thinking that every QB we dig up is going to be a pro-bowler.....Green goes down, bring in Warner....Warner goes down, bring in Green.....Warner goes down again, bring in Bulger. Folks, we can't strike gold with our backup everytime. Martin is a backup and if 81% isn't good enough for a backup, I suggest we look around the league at some of the other backups......Martin ain't as bad as most are making him out to be. Is he great? No. Is he a serviceable backup? Yes. Does he give us a chance to win? No, but we haven't exactly been winning with Bulger either. When Martin misses a tackle or gets beat on a post route to the endzone, let me know.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  13. #13
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,573
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    Okay Ferter. You're talking about elite QBs and I'm talking about servicable backups. Not sure how you ended up out in left field but try to come back to the party and keep up. If you think that Jamie Martin is a servicable backup then hide and watch him for the next two weeks and see if he proves you right.

    Trent Dilfer wasn't an elite QB by any stretch of the imagination but he could win games if he was needed because of an injury to Hasselbeck. That's what a backup is supposed to do - give the team a chance when the starter is down.

    Martin gives you no chance. He's simply standing in the space until Bulger gets back. What purpose does that serve? He's a poor backup. But if you're fine with it, I'm fine with it. Like you pointed out, it's your team. Enjoy.
    LOL LOL

    Not sure why you have to get frustrated and resort to insults? We have one elite QB, not two, that's all I said.

    So your opinion is that Martin is not a serviceable back-up. That's fine. Maybe he is not.

    Who did the Jets sign? Did that old man give them a chance to win?

    Martin knows the Rams offense and has won a game in this Rams offense. That would indicate to me that he gives them a chance.

    Not sure what this business about Martin proving me right is all about?

    This was about the FO. And again I'm not sure what else they could have done in regards to the back-up QB? Maybe you could offer an opinion as to what they were supposed to do, instead of going off on some proven right tangent?

    It is what it is. Not sure what the hell I could do about it anyways. The QB is one freaking guy and IMO the least of the Rams current problems.




  14. #14
    thoey's Avatar
    thoey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,017
    Rep Power
    32

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    I am sorry. If there were ANY Rams fans that saw the game and said "Crap, Bulgar's down, good thing we have Martin..." I will never post here again.

    At least Trent Dilfer is starting some where now. Maybe not having the best season, but some team thought he was good enough to start.

    We pulled Martin off the scrap heap when we cut Smoker. That was at the middle to end of pre-season. That means NO ONE was willing to even hire him as third string or practice squad fodder. The ONLY thing he has going for him is that he knows our system.

    For a fan of an opponent that came in, Large Ant has spoken realistically, not only from his heart. I think he deserves the same respect.

    But, then again, when a Rams fan does the same, we are negative "Naysayers"...
    This space for rent...

  15. #15
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,544
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Like the ESPN show - Rams need Playmakers

    I am sorry. If there were ANY Rams fans that saw the game and said "Crap, Bulgar's down, good thing we have Martin..." I will never post here again.
    Terry, I agree that you could count on a snake's fingers the number of fans excited to see Martin enter the game. It sucked the life out of me, it probably sucked the life out of most Ram fans, and by looking on the field I'd say it sucked the life out of the Rams........my point is that a lot of people are ripping on Martin unfairly IMO. He completed 81% of his passes, moved the ball down the field, and did manage a TD. He did throw 2 picks as well, but let's not hang him out for that without recognizing what he did right.

    Like I said earlier, does Martin better our chances of winning? Good grief NO! I haven't seen the line, but I'm betting w/o Bulger we are underdogs to the 'aints at home. That's a sad statement on our chances without Bulger. However, if we're going to criticize our backup, let's at least do so with realistic expectations and recognition for what he did right.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

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
  •