Rams’ Martz knew Bulger would be special

[AvengerRam]

All we are saying...

Is give Marc a chance...

[r8rh8rmike]

That's what a lot of us were saying about Warner, and I'm more than willing to give Bulger the consideration Warner did not get. But that in no way means statements, issues and performance can't be raised and discussed, be it negative or positive.

[HUbison]

That's what a lot of us were saying about Warner, and I'm more than willing to give Bulger the consideration Warner did not get. But that in no way means statements, issues and performance can't be raised and discussed, be it negative or positive.

Mike is exactly right. Notwithstanding 1 or 2 glaring exceptions (you know who you are), I've never heard any Rams fan say they weren't going to give Bulger a chance. I've heard more people talk about getting rid of Pace than I have Bulger. Why weren't those individuals blasted for voicing their anti-Pace opinion. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the Warner situation was handled poorly by several parties. But what is done, is done. Bulger is the starter and my only hope is that he make up 1/53 of the 2005 Super Bowl champions.

TX, has the right idea. As long as we win, who cares about the QB?

[Nick]

Pretty hard to do much of anything, let alone win the confidence of your teammates sitting on the bench away from the dynamics of a team.

You said Bulger was handed the team because Warner never got a chance to prove his abilities. Last time I checked, Warner was the one who was handed the job going into 2003. In terms of winning the confidence of his team, he had every chance to do that going into both 2002 and 2003, and he performed poorly. He lost the job all by himself despite having every chance to secure it.

Your opinion is pretty presumptuous wouldn't you say? Have you heard a lot of Warner fans say they will not like Bulger no matter what?

It's a statement Marc Bulger made to the press in a published article. I was repeating it because based on Mokler -- a huge Warner fan and big Martz critic -- and his response and criticism of Bulger, it seemed fairly accurate. And yes, I have heard Warner fans say they will never like Bulger. Go to the PD board if you don't believe they exist. That's one place among others that I've heard Warner fans say this.

That's what a lot of us were saying about Warner, and I'm more than willing to give Bulger the consideration Warner did not get. But that in no way means statements, issues and performance can't be raised and discussed, be it negative or positive.

Who's saying issues can't be raised and discussed? What I'm saying is do it in an objective and fair manner, and I don't think Mok's doing that. 10 subpar performances in a row, Warner's last ten games gave him a higher rating than Bulger's last ten. Like I said, it's a witchhunt.

If someone wants to reasonably debate the positives and negatives of our quarterback -- and to be fair, Mok did just that on a number of occasions in this thread -- then I'm all for it. But what really tweaks my nipples is when someone is unfair to a person because of their bias towards someone else, and I think that's exactly what's going on here. Mok has brought up a lot of good points about Marc, but at the same time, is being really unfair to him and to Martz on a number of other points, at least in my opinion.

[AvengerRam]

Warner had his chance and, for the most part, made the most of it. Now, like it or not, its Bulger's turn. Don't condemn him after 1 1/2 years just because he's not Kurt Warner.

That's all I'm going to say about this subject.

[Curly Horns]

Just for the sake of trying to get back on topic with this thread....

I really wish Mike Martz would heed an old adage!

It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

[adarian_too]

After all this has been said and done I am still left with the same conclusions I had before the hookay was refilled -

I don't like my QB to have the arms of a comatose patient; any person to flaunt their belief system in my face; and my coach to get the haircut of a pageboy.

The shame of it all is that you are left wondering whether there are any public figures out there (reporters/coaches/spokespersons etc) whose credibility isn't an issue and why have we gotten to this point where the only person's words who are questioned and challenged are those who aren't quoted in the media anyway.

Oh well, back to the more important things like preparing the next batch of mash ...

[r8rh8rmike]

Who's saying issues can't be raised and discussed? What I'm saying is do it in an objective and fair manner, and I don't think Mok's doing that. 10 subpar performances in a row, Warner's last ten games gave him a higher rating than Bulger's last ten. Like I said, it's a witchhunt.

One mans "objective and fair manner" is anothers "one-sided and unfair manner". It's all subjective.

Great quote Ferter, it really puts things in perspective.

[Nick]

One mans "objective and fair manner" is anothers "one-sided and unfair manner". It's all subjective.

Great quote Ferter, it really puts things in perspective.

When one man admits to being biased and another shows that some of the information he's posting isn't accurate, it's hard to say that it's all subjective.

And yes, that is a good quote, Ferter.

[r8rh8rmike]

Nick, this board is most definitely a more interesting place with you around. Good to have you here.

[Nick]

Nick, this board is most definitely a more interesting place with you around. Good to have you here.

Hey, as long as I serve some kind of purpose....

[moklerman]

Average for those last ten performances: 65.74

That's not how you come to an accurate qb rating Nick. For the 10 games mentioned KW's qb rating was 69.1. I guess I should have been more accurate when I said "last 10 games". I meant "game" as in start to finish, not mop up duty or spot relief like the Dallas, Chicago and Detroit games. I'll stand corrected though and go by appearances. It still illustrates my point that KW is perceived washed up at 69.1 and Bulger is named team captain for 70.2. Less than one point difference is hardly night and day. As far as last 10 games played, just for anyone who's curious, KW's rating was 77.6.

And I'll admit that "10 subpar performances in a row" was a poor choice of wording. When arriving at a rating of 70.2 after a 10 game stretch, it would be more accurate to say something like: 10 inconsistent games that totaled a very subpar performance overall.

All of this is somewhat beside the point I was trying to make, but I will accept corrections in grammar when they are warranted. My apologies.

The point I was originally trying to illustrate was how Bulger's poor rating came in succesive games whereas Warner's struggles and poor rating came in tougher games, coming back from injury and to start a season over the course of 3 years. For someone as focused and aware of circumstance and situations as you are Nick, I would think you could really appreciate the difference in how Warner and Bulger arrived at their similar statistics.

[HUbison]

That's not how you come to an accurate qb rating Nick. For the 10 games mentioned KW's qb rating was 69.1. I guess I should have been more accurate when I said "last 10 games". I meant "game" as in start to finish, not mop up duty or spot relief like the Dallas, Chicago and Detroit games. I'll stand corrected though and go by appearances. It still illustrates my point that KW is perceived washed up at 69.1 and Bulger is named team captain for 70.2. Less than one point difference is hardly night and day. As far as last 10 games played, just for anyone who's curious, KW's rating was 77.6.

Not to continue the opening of this proverbial can o' worms, but Warner was dealing with the hand injury during most of the games in question, as well.

[moklerman]

something Avenger showed us is not even close to true!

I don't think it was that far off base. I wound up being inaccurate by relying on my memory for those 10 games rather than re-doing the research but Avenger showed that Bulger had seven subpar games out of the last ten. That's hardly the unfounded accusation that you have me making.

[moklerman]

When one man admits to being biased and another shows that some of the information he's posting isn't accurate, it's hard to say that it's all subjective.

Since your information regarding KW's qb rating was incorrect am I safe to assume that you're a Warner hater with an axe to grind? Obviously you couldn't be subjective when posting such blatantly wrong information, could you?

Just splittin' hairs with you buddy, it's only a joke.