Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,672
    Rep Power
    82

    Marc Bulger follow up

    I have read through some of the posts on marc bulger and it is really hard to believe some of the stuff i see. I wonder if some of these posts are from people that have seen anything other than highlights of rams games for quite a while.

    First of all, when people blame bulger for the loss, i would like to know how i could have watched the entire game and missed seeing bulger on either the punt return or kickoff coverage units. Furthermore, i have yet to see a qb in the nfl that is in charge of both throwing AND playing right tackle at the same time.

    Guys, the rams offense is DESIGNED for the qb to hold the ball a long time for the receivers to run their routes. We dont see game film, how many passes does bulger complete in part BECAUSE he holds the ball for so long (as did his predecessor). I dont want a qb who throws it away at the first sign of pressure, it wont work in our offense.

    The guy made some fantastic throws and some very nimble moves in the pocket. We couldnt run the ball much at all and that always makes it harder. The right tackle situation was so bad it was a disgrace.

    I liked the play calling by the way. The same people that are complaining about the play calling now are the ones that spent off season complaining that martz makes no commitment to the running game.

    The whiners made some nice plays, give them credit. That willl be in my next post.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel



  2. #2
    Tom_SF's Avatar
    Tom_SF is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    125
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    As I said in an earlier post, they need a hypnotist. They need to quit seeing a brick wall when they reach the 20. Now if FG's were 8 points instead of 3 there wouldn't be a problem.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Glenrothes, SCOTLAND
    Posts
    9,974
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Tom, nice as it is to score 6 rather than 3 ............... I cn name you teams that won superbowls that built a living winning with 3 points.

    The one glaring sore poin t on our team is Special teams and thats the ONE big problem. Sure anyone can pick one or two plays and clain this is the Rams wows but the Special teams are the problem, thats what lost us the game.


  4. #4
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,672
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Special teams is truly a debacle, but i think that the red zone offense, which ties into the right tackle situation, is a big part of it as well. In addition to whiffing on numerous opportunities to pass block ala john st clair, tucker also had a HUGE false start penalty on third and pretty short down by the goal line. True, teams have won superbowls kicking field goals, but those were teams with a LOT better defense than ours. Alas, time of possession and total yardage are not categories on the scoreboard.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  5. #5
    jkramsfan Guest

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Sorry Dez I Dont Agree With That, As Poor As The Special Teams Were, Not Getting In The End Zone Was The Deciding Factor In The Game,had We Done That, Our Poor St Play Would Not Have Made A Difference,and Also On Your Point Of Other Teams And Field Goals, We Arent Talking About Other Teams, We Are Talking About The Rams And They Are A Team That Needs 6 In The Red Zone Not 3 To Cover Our Other Short Comings.

  6. #6
    brhokla Guest

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    General Counsel, That's probably the closest to the truth I have ever heard from a Rams fan. You are exactly correct. The sacks were coverage sacks on Bulger. It seems as the recievers didn't get separation from the cb's. I also think Nolan has instilled a lot more discipline in the players. They played alot more aggressive than I thought they would. Actually the Niners had many get away. They could of had 3-4 ints. I do however think the biggest weakness the Rams have is Martz and the Special Teams.

  7. #7
    shortman1984 Guest

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Quote Originally Posted by jkramsfan
    Sorry Dez I Dont Agree With That, As Poor As The Special Teams Were, Not Getting In The End Zone Was The Deciding Factor In The Game,had We Done That, Our Poor St Play Would Not Have Made A Difference,and Also On Your Point Of Other Teams And Field Goals, We Arent Talking About Other Teams, We Are Talking About The Rams And They Are A Team That Needs 6 In The Red Zone Not 3 To Cover Our Other Short Comings.
    Well you are true in a way we do need to do better in the red zone but if they didnt run back a punt return for a TD then we would have won anyways..But I do agree with the Red zone scoring. To many mistakes at the worse possible times. Sacks in the redzone Int at the last moment of the game. We still have plenty of time to fix this but i just hope they fix it. And get the Football into the endzone . We could have probably gotten into the 40's if we did that. But oh well cant change it now we lost and congrats to the niners but we will meet them again.

  8. #8
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,682
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    NO, NO, NO !!

    Watch the tape again if you have one!

    I have only reviewed the first four sacks. Aside from possibly one of the first four sacks Bulger was holding the ball too long. He had recievers wide open and right in his line of sight on two of the first four sacks. Granted you need some time in this offense, but very often the ball is to be thrown to a spot and released before the receiver gets to that spot. If nothing else throw the ball away rather than eat the yardage lost from a sack.


    :clanram:

  9. #9
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    There were times when I would see either Holt or Bruce open underneath but Bulger just wouldn't throw to them for some reason.

  10. #10
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,806
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    I have only reviewed the first four sacks. Aside from possibly one of the first four sacks Bulger was holding the ball too long. He had recievers wide open and right in his line of sight on two of the first four sacks. Granted you need some time in this offense, but very often the ball is to be thrown to a spot and released before the receiver gets to that spot. If nothing else throw the ball away rather than eat the yardage lost from a sack.
    The problem with "holding the ball too long" is that we run an offense that has long-developing receiver routes. Yes, very often the ball is released before the receiver gets to his spot. But you don't release that ball a second after the snap to throw to a route that takes five seconds developing. If the receiver isn't going to be open at that spot, you don't throw early and just hope he breaks away. I think Bulger did hold onto the ball too long yesterday at times, but I would suggest that such a behavior is also a factor of our offense. Warner did it at times as well, and a lot of people complained that he didn't throw the ball away either. That leads me to believe it's probably more a coaching/scheme thing than anything else.

    Just my two cents.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  11. #11
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,682
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    The problem with "holding the ball too long" is that we run an offense that has long-developing receiver routes. Yes, very often the ball is released before the receiver gets to his spot. But you don't release that ball a second after the snap to throw to a route that takes five seconds developing. If the receiver isn't going to be open at that spot, you don't throw early and just hope he breaks away. I think Bulger did hold onto the ball too long yesterday at times, but I would suggest that such a behavior is also a factor of our offense. Warner did it at times as well, and a lot of people complained that he didn't throw the ball away either. That leads me to believe it's probably more a coaching/scheme thing than anything else.

    Just my two cents.
    I understand your two cents Nick. I am not suggesting that the ball be released a second after the snap on a five second route nor am I suggesting any type of throw it for grabs and hope for the best situation.

    I suspected that Bulger was holding the ball too long and after reviewing the first four sacks I confirmed it. On two of the first four sacks Bulger had a receiver open within his line of sight. It is very evident on tape. He either did not see the receiver or simply chose not to throw it to the receiver.

    I know Martz has got upset with Bulger in the past for not throwing the ball (holding it too long). I'm not sure it is a scheme thing.

    Since the offense has no audibles there are checkdowns built in. I think Bulger was failing to use them at times. I'm not blaming him for the loss. I felt he had a subpar performance with his reads, checkdowns and some errant throws. He did not seem as sharp as I have seen him in the past.



  12. #12
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,806
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Marc Bulger follow up

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    I suspected that Bulger was holding the ball too long and after reviewing the first four sacks I confirmed it. On two of the first four sacks Bulger had a receiver open within his line of sight. It is very evident on tape. He either did not see the receiver or simply chose not to throw it to the receiver.
    Perhaps the play was drawn up to go down field, and these receivers were far down in the progressions? Look at the interception he threw in the Detroit game for example. It was third and long, Bulger had both Faulk and McDonald open, but neither were in a position to make a first down, so he zipped a ball into Bruce who was better covered but at the first down marker.

    Did you notice if down, field position, or other factors might have caused Bulger to ignore his open receivers? On one of the sacks I saw from highlights, Bulger had Jackson open in the flat on the left on first and ten in the red zone (around the 17), but was looking toward his right for about four seconds before he was sacked. I'm assuming he was doing so partially because he was waiting for a route to develop that would help them move closer to the end zone, rather than dumping the ball off for what would probably have been a minimal gain.

    I think that's part of the risk/reward factor of the offense. You take the risk of a sack by waiting as long as possible on the longer developing routes to try and maximize your gain on the play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    I think Bulger was failing to use them at times. I'm not blaming him for the loss. I felt he had a subpar performance with his reads, checkdowns and some errant throws. He did not seem as sharp as I have seen him in the past.
    That certainly could be the case; I'm not saying that's not the case. I'm just trying to offer other suggestions as to why this might be occuring. Bulger might be failing to go through his progressions because he wants to make something happen down field. Maybe he doesn't progress to that third read because he thinks if his first can get open on that deep in, they'll get a first down. If that's the case, he needs to stick with the offense and go to the next read if the previous isn't open. But if the ***** were doing a good job protecting against the big plays like they were yesterday, I think it's also the responsibility of the coach/coordinator calling the plays (in our case, Martz) to use tactics that are working. If the ***** are getting pressure and making it hard to let those routes progress, we need to adjust and call plays that don't take as long to develop.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



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
  •