Multiple Bernie

**Nick** · #1 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Compiled and Posted By RubberSoul on the PD Board

Post subject: Bernie Bits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BernieM wrote:
And how exactly did you arrive to the conclusion that Arizona wanted to win the game more?

One team had 448 yards; the other 260.
One team had 27 first downs, the other 14.
One team forced eight punts; the other team forced three.

Rams turnovers were the reason why the game was close. Steven Jackson fumbled....was it because of a lack of desire? .... Bulger threw an INT; was it because he didn't want to win? Looker got hit and fumbled; was it because he didn't care?

Did you see the Rams defense? All three times after the Rams offense turned the ball over, they forced Arizona off the field in three plays....after the long kickoff return to the STL 29-yard line, the Rams defense forced AZ to settle for a field goal. In the fourth quarter, protecting a 7-point lead, the Rams defense held three different times and forced punts. Is that not a show of character, heart, whatever you want to call it?

What about the Rams offensive line? Rams RBs averaged 5.9 yards per carry; no sacks were allowed. Did the Rams' offensive line lay down and play lethargically? If so, back it up.

Rams LB Pisa Tinoisimoa suffered a dislocated shoulder and had to leave the game...the docs popped it back in place, put the shoulder in a harness, and he returned to play....he was in a tremendous amount of pain. But he played on. CB Jerametrius Butler dislocated a couple of fingers, had them popped back into place, and played the rest of the way....yeah, the Rams really dogged it.

I'm just looking for some evidence to support the accusation that the Cardinals cared more about winning than the Rams.

Cheers,
Bernie

On spoiled fans:
BernieM wrote:
It's really pathetic.

These fans -- not the loyal and discerning fans who offer constructive and on-point criticism, but the chronic and mindless whiners -- deserve to have a 4-12 team.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Bulger's problem today was his failure to check down to Faulk on three key occasions; two in the red zone; he forced throws instead.

Cheers,
Bernie

On Pace Firing Postons:
BernieM wrote:
Pace denied that after the game.

Too bad.

I think his life would be less complicated without the Postons.

Cheers,
Bernie

On Pace:
BernieM wrote:
Gee, he really stunk it up today, didn't he?

The Rams averaged only 5.9 yards per rushing attempt and allowed no sacks. One assistant told me that as far as he could tell -- he'll have to check the films -- Pace played close to a perfect game.

I guess OP missing camp wasn't the end of the world as we know it.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
It's so danged hard to win games in this parity-filled league.
The Rams clearly need to play better from here on out.
Martz needs to clean up the red zone play calls.
But I'll take a win in any way, shape or form.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Yeah, that Bulger sucks.

I hated the way he caused Jackson and Looker to fumble.

And the way he followed the coach's play call and handed the ball off to Cam Cleeland (HUH?) on an inside reverse.

That 71-yard kickoff return was Bulger's fault, too. I saw him miss a tackle. I really did. He sucks.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Bulger's rating was a good 89.3.

He got rid of the ball today to avoid sacks. That's improvement.

He didn't check down and forced passes. That's the same thing we saw last year.

When the Rams fell behind 10-9, he went 3-4 for 57 yards and a TD on the next drive. Excellent response.

His accuracy was good. He made some clutch throws.

The deep ball for the INT was bad.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
I'll take the win.

Some people would say it's always exciting when your team wins.

I would say it was exciting to see Marshall Faulk look younger and quicker, and to see Isaac Bruce as classic as he ever was. I'd say it was exciting to see the Rams defense make so many important stops. I'd say it was exciting to see the offensive line play such a strong game, and to see Pace dominate his opponent.

But that's just me.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
OCRich...

always good to read a post from you.

you are right about the reads. though I don't fault him on the INT that was called back. If #86 isn't held so brazenly, he's clear. It's an easy completion.

I left out another plus today: Bulger's poise. He never wavered.

Cheers,
B

**HUbison** · #2 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernie

These fans -- not the loyal and discerning fans who offer constructive and on-point criticism, but the chronic and mindless whiners -- deserve to have a 4-12 team

I will never understand how St. Louis can produce both Redbird fans, the greatest fans in all of baseball, and that portion of Ram fans who are disloyal and spoiled (present company excluded, of course).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernie

Bulger's problem today was his failure to check down to Faulk on three key occasions; two in the red zone; he forced throws instead.

This has got to stop. He had one pick and very easily could have had 4, not counting the one that got called back. He's accurate, composed & a top-notch QB, but he has to learn stop locking on and find alternate routes.

**txramsfan** · #3 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

I thought the same thing, but after the end zone debacle where he tried to force the pass to Manu....he started to look for the guys in the flat. He hit Faulk on two consecutive plays after that, one on a checkdown and one on a screen.

*tanus* · #4 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

if Manu wouldn't have been held it wouldn't have been a forced pass. Manu has his guy clearly beat before the hold. Nothing at all wrong with that pass from Bulger.

**Nick** · #5 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by txramsfan

I thought the same thing, but after the end zone debacle where he tried to force the pass to Manu....he started to look for the guys in the flat. He hit Faulk on two consecutive plays after that, one on a checkdown and one on a screen.

Is a screen play really Bulger successfully looking to the flat though? I mean, it's a designed play, so he's supposed to be looking there. Not quite as impressive, IMO, as his going through his progressions and hitting Faulk out there on a regular pass play, or reacting that way to a blitz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanus

if Manu wouldn't have been held it wouldn't have been a forced pass. Manu has his guy clearly beat before the hold. Nothing at all wrong with that pass from Bulger.

Agreed, I don't fault him for that play at all. Based on the replay I saw, if Manu isn't held up, he makes that catch. I'd be interested in seeing the game tape of his interception to see if anyone was wide open.

I remember one specific play where Bulger tried to force the ball to Holt, who was covered in the endzone, instead of dumping it out to Faulk in the flat. Was the blitz coming from Faulk's side? If so, it would have been hard to get the ball to Marshall.

But I agree that he needs to look more to the flats. I wonder, though, if he's not looking there because it's the last of his reads, or perhaps there's another hot read for blitzes on these type of plays.

**HUbison** · #6 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

But I agree that he needs to look more to the flats. I wonder, though, if he's not looking there because it's the last of his reads

If Faulk is Bulger's final read, then my concern goes from play execution to play design.

**Nick** · #7 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

If Faulk is Bulger's final read, then my concern goes from play execution to play design.

Well, when you've got Holt, Bruce, Curtis/McDonald/Looker, and Faulk on the field, what would you order the reads, in general? Faulk certainly wouldn't be the top of my list. You've gotta look downfield.

**AvengerRam** · #8 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Lord knows I'm far from Bernie's biggest fan, but I have to say that I agree with a lot of what he said in those posts.

I guess its true what they say about blind squirrels and acorns.

**HUbison** · #9 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

Well, when you've got Holt, Bruce, Curtis/McDonald/Looker, and Faulk on the field, what would you order the reads, in general? Faulk certainly wouldn't be the top of my list. You've gotta look downfield.

Different situations call for different reads, but in general, I would design Holt, Bruce, Faulk, whatever. If I'm passing on 2nd & short and certainly on 3rd & short, Faulk bumps up to my 1st read if not primary receiver. If it's 3rd and long (assuming he's coming out of the backfield, and not in slot), then yea, I'd push Faulk down the reads.

*ZigZagRam* · #10 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

I will never understand how St. Louis can produce both Redbird fans, the greatest fans in all of baseball, and that portion of Ram fans who are disloyal and spoiled (present company excluded, of course).

I'd be willing to bet anything that a lot of these fans jumped on the Ram wagon mid way through the 1999 season.

**Nick** · #11 (**permalink**) -13-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

Different situations call for different reads, but in general, I would design Holt, Bruce, Faulk, whatever. If I'm passing on 2nd & short and certainly on 3rd & short, Faulk bumps up to my 1st read if not primary receiver. If it's 3rd and long (assuming he's coming out of the backfield, and not in slot), then yea, I'd push Faulk down the reads.

Well, the one play that stands out in my mind where Bulger missed Faulk in the flat was a 3rd and 8 at the Arizona 10-yard line. That's the only time I really remember Savard and Snow commenting on Faulk being wide open in the flat.

I'm just not convinced the dump off to Faulk is as high on the progression as it used to be, given our depth at WR and Faulk's in-and-out status because of injury. That said, I think it's important for Bulger to know where Faulk is on the blitz because a dump off in the flat seems like the safest counter.