Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 162
  1. #106
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Then find some other aspect of the team to be optimistic about.


  2. #107
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Believe it or not, I've tried it and you know what? People don't respond. In order to get a discussion out of anyone I have to talk about things that I feel the Rams should improve upon. There are some who like to complain about the fact that others are complaining, but whenever I've tried to start a positive thread about how I think the Rams did this or that the right way, it flutters and dies quicker than a Marc Bulger outlet pass to Faulk.

    Granted, Bulger is an easy target right now and he may grow out of it to become the next Kurt Warner but he hasn't yet and he hasn't shown any signs of improving in a long time. He hasn't won since 2003 after all.

  3. #108
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    Yup, because that is what was important about the research I did. I also distinctly remember the end result of Tony Banks qb rating being 70.6.
    What's your point with the Tony Banks comparisons? Again, even if they boasted a similar QB rating, there's a huge difference: wins. Banks went 2-8 in the ten game span you're referencing. Bulger went 7-3 in that span, including a seven game winning streak.

    Like I said, he may not always be pretty about it, but he still seems to get it done. Would you rather have a QB ranked in the top five passers in the league in QB rating but losing the majority of his games? I'll take an ugly winner over a pretty loser almost any day of the week.

    After beating Seattle in December, Grant Wistrom made the following statement about close games: "But as long as we keep winning, we'll take them any way we can get them." I think that statement can be applied to some of Bulger's performances as well. Every win isn't going to be pretty, thus I find it comforting that we have a quarterback who can help pull out a win in the ugliest of situations.


    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    We can all agree that 10 games is more than half of a season right? So, for more than half of last year (the last 10 games in a row) Bulger posted a 70.2 qb rating. Some of the games were actually good and some were bad and a couple were awful. He REGRESSED as the season went on and didn't look like he was learning from his mistakes. That's a valid reason for criticizing Bulger isn't it?
    Let's break it down.

    The loss to San Fran. The pressure was on all day, and the Rams were ill-prepared for it. Arlen Harris, the third string running back in only his second start, was faced with a variety of pressure from the defense and didn't respond well. Despite that though, the average QB rating against the ***** defense in 2003 was 78.6. Bulger was better than average: 79.3. He passed for nearly 200 yards in the fourth quarter alone. The Rams achieved just 9 yards on the ground. Bulger, unlike some quarterbacks, stated after the game that he felt the blame was entirely on his shoulders.

    Baltimore was one of the best defenses in the league last season. They rank as the second best pass defense in the league based on opposing QB rating. Bulger didn't perform well, but again we're talking about one of the league's best defenses. To expect him to shine in this game was unrealistic.

    Chicago. Middle of the road defense, pretty crappy weather, Bears finished the season 6-2 at home. Bulger throws two interceptions but also two touchdowns, and in slightly over two minutes, helps drive the Rams from their own 20-yard line to within field goal position to win the game. Not a great performance and less than average by league standards, but he wasn't absolutely horrible and he was clutch to help with the win.

    Arizona. I'll get to them later.

    Minnesota. Regression? Heck no! Bulger hits a home run! 106.7 QB rating against the fourth best pass defense in the league (judging by QB rating)! He throws for one TD in the air while running for one himself, averaged 11.1 yards per attempt and completes 75% of his throws against a team that allowed on average only 58.6% of pass attempts. Why don't you ask Brett Favre the kind of QB rating he pulled off at home against the Vikes?

    Cleveland. Ninth ranked passing defense in the league based on the opponents' average QB rating, which Bulger was above. Marc was instrumental in helping the Rams gain a first half lead, throwing a key touchdown strike to Isaac Bruce at the end of the second quarter to give the Rams a comfortable lead. The Browns allowed an average of 190 yards per game by opposing quarterbacks through the air, and Bulger threw for over two thirds that total in the first half alone, throwing for 7.3 yards per attempt.

    Seattle. A playoff caliber team. Regression? Not a chance. 92.7 QB rating. The Seahawks were notoriously not a strong passing defense, but they held Marc to a 66.5 earlier in the year. I'd say from the first game to the second game versus Seattle, there was a fairly large improvement in his play! Better completion percentage, more yards per attempt, and a 2/1 touchdown-interception ratio, which was reversed in their first contest.

    Cincinnati. Not a subpar performance at all. Bulger continues to perform well late in the season. QBs on average last season completed only 58.5% of their passes against the Bungals, but Marc hit over 63% of his, including two touchdowns after a rough early start. And despite that start, he was instrumental in the Rams' first scoring drive by hitting three crucial passes to move the chains, and sported a QB rating of 91.3 in the second half.

    Detroit. Not a great team, but the Lions held Brett Favre to a QB rating of 71.4 when he went into the Dome to play them. Clearly they had the ability to do damage and to play with the big dogs. Bulger was knocked out of the game injured because of the kind of pressure that was getting to him, including an uncalled helmet-to-helmet collision from Otis Smith. Wistrom himself commented that the entire team was flat and didn't want it as bad. In the first half, Bulger had a QB rating in the 90s, but everything went downhill for the entire team in the second half.

    Carolina. What I'll say is this: Marc Bulger threw three interceptions, and no touchdown passes against one of the top ten defenses of last season. But he was also the driving force in the Rams first half scoring, and came out slinging to get them on the board again in the third quarter. Despite throwing two fourth quarter interceptions, Bulger -- like he'd done numerous times in the regular season -- wouldn't give up and helped lead the Rams to their only touchdown of the game with key pivotal conversions through the air. After the onside kick, Bulger hit two huge strikes to Bruce and helped move the Rams into field goal position to send the game into overtime. Marc threw for 71 yards in overtime trying to help the Rams get in position, but was picked off on a pass to Holt that was read well by Ricky Manning, who was a monster at grabbing passes in the playoffs for Carolina (picked off McNabb three times).

    Obviously I have a different outlook on these games, but to me, there's no huge regression in play. You've got a tough road game against a division rival seeking revenge with a third string running back, a game against one of the best defenses in the league, a rough weather road game against a team that was 6-2 at home followed by another divisional road game against another team that proved to be deadly at home, a great performance against one of the best passing defenses in the league, a decent to above-average performance (by the Browns' standards) against Cleveland on the road, a great revenge performance against division rivals to get closer towards a division title, a strong performance against a surprisingly good Bengals team that barely missed the playoffs, a poor performance (by the whole team really) against a team that shut even Favre down at home, and then a statistically poor yet admirable performance against the NFC champs.

    Yes, Bulger could have played better. But I don't see a regression. What I see is inconsistency. It seems to me that you're asking Marc Bulger, who up until this season played in five full games of pro football, to come in and be a league leader when he wasn't even the team's first choice as a QB going into this year? You expected him to dominate Baltimore? Chicago on the road in bad weather? San Fran with a third string running back? Carolina, the eventual NFC champions, who held Donovan McNabb to a QB rating of 19.3 (Bulger's was 58.3 vs the Panthers)? Clearly he wasn't playing against pop warner opponents, and while he did make some mistakes, I don't see a regression. I see a young inexperienced quarterback struggling at times but also making great plays at times against tough defenses.

    Again, I don't see a regression because he spiked three good games at the end of the year against tough opponents. What I see is inconsistentcy, and I believe inconsistency can be fixed with experience and practice. Hopefully 2003 was just the kind of experience he needs in order to make his game better in 2004 and beyond.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I can understand people hoping that he gets better and wanting to be optimistic but he hasn't maintained the high level of play to warrant optimism. His play has steadily dropped off since he started playing in 2002 and the 7 out of 10 games to end 2003 that were subpar are an indicator that there might not be improvement.
    He hasn't maintained a low level of play either. And no, his play didn't steadily drop. Look at the Minnesota, Seattle, and Cincy games where he excelled. A steady drop doesn't have a sharp spike in the middle of it.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    You're actually comparing Arizona's "defense" and Tampa Bay's at the height of their success? Arizona was a decent team because they beat SF? Because they beat Minnesota? Those were hardly elite teams in the NFL last year.
    No. My comment about Warner and Tampa Bay was supposed to be more of a joke than anything else (hence the ZING! that you edited out of your quote). But the point was Arizona was a hard team to beat at home. They proved it when they beat Minnesota and Green Bay, and I don't think that win against the ***** was an easy feat either. And yes, beating Minnesota shows me something, because Minnesota would have been in the playoffs had they won that game. Favre and Culpepper couldn't do enough for a win, but Bulger was able to pull it out. Again, shows me something about leadership and this guy's ability to pull off ugly wins.

    You never answered my question, either. Do you think most QBs who throw four interceptions are able to help their team battle back at the end?



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I think I would be a little more comfortable if Mike Martz was optimistic about Bulger rather than trying to sell me on the idea that he's more than talented, astounding and shares traits with Marino and Montana. Optimism is one thing but presumptions based on intuition are something else.

    Some important things I saw from Bulger last year were: his reads didn't improve throughout the course of the year, his long ball was very inaccurate all year, his interception total and he had trouble converting in the red zone. All of these things were constants throughout the year. Optimism would be appropriate if he was getting better as the year went on. Pesimism is what I have since he got worse as the year went along.
    It's interesting how you cry foul when Warner is used as a scapegoat, yet you're more than willing to blame the Rams' red zone problems on Bulger. And who was the one to bring up a double standard?

    It's also interesting to note that when listing important things you saw from Bulger last year, you listed no positives. That's very telling.

    As a concluding note, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's a reason you only quote and respond to certain phrases and ignore others, like how I brought up that the schedule wasn't as easy as you tried to imply it was by showing how at least four of those teams boasted difficult passing defenses based on your covetted QB rating.

    Speaking of, I'm still waiting to see how you got your QB rating for Warner during his last ten games. On ESPN.com, if you go to Warner's player profile, then to his game log, you can find his passer ratings for every game he's appeared in since 2001. If you average the QB ratings of the last ten performances based on ESPN.com's stats for Warner, you get.... 65.74.

    Explanations? Perhaps it was your memory again, because ESPN lists the ratings right there for you, and when you enter them all in and divide by the number of games, the average you get is the number I presented to you, not the one you claimed.
    Last edited by Nick; -06-10-2004 at 03:56 AM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #109
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special


  5. #110
    Bob L. Head's Avatar
    Bob L. Head is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    California, USA, Earth, Milky Way, The Universe
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    13

    Thumbs up Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    I'm still waiting to see how you got your QB rating for Warner during his last ten games. On ESPN.com, if you go to Warner's player profile, then to his game log, you can find his passer ratings for every game he's appeared in since 2001. If you average the QB ratings of the last ten performances based on ESPN.com's stats for Warner, you get.... 65.74.
    Wow. I wish I had enough time to formulate a thought big enough to express in an post like that, Nick. Good job, even if I disagree with you.

    To answer your question above, all components of the QB rating are based on the number of attempts. What this means is that an average doesn't work unless all of the games had an equal number of attempts. Warner had a couple of games where his numbers were very poor, but he had few pass attempts. This would make an average calculate low. What you need to do to be accurate is add all of his attempts, completions, yards, TDs and INTs for those 10 games, and then run the rating calculations on the totals. If you do this, you get something over 70.0.
    Have some fondue, it's delicious.

  6. #111
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob L. Head
    Wow. I wish I had enough time to formulate a thought big enough to express in an post like that, Nick. Good job, even if I disagree with you.

    To answer your question above, all components of the QB rating are based on the number of attempts. What this means is that an average doesn't work unless all of the games had an equal number of attempts. Warner had a couple of games where his numbers were very poor, but he had few pass attempts. This would make an average calculate low. What you need to do to be accurate is add all of his attempts, completions, yards, TDs and INTs for those 10 games, and then run the rating calculations on the totals. If you do this, you get something over 70.0.
    That's actually a very interesting point, Deacon. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

    Rather than average the last ten ratings, if you combine the stats for Warner's last ten performances and then calculate a rating based on those stats, the final total is 71.23. If you do the same for Bulger's stats over his last ten games, the result is 73.5. Still higher, and now the Tony Banks comparisons can stop.

    Calculations done via http://www.primecomputing.com/

    Interestingly enough, neither my previous ratings nor these new ratings using the method you described seem to match what Mok had as either QBs rating, so I'm interested to see what method he used. Regardless, both bring up an interesting point: both Bulger and Warner were better than we gave them credit for.

    Regardless, it would be appropriate if not necessary to apoligize to Mok for -- in retrospect -- what reads like a bit of a nasty end to my last response to him. Clearly I'm incompetent in actually calculating a QB rating, but at least the point I was making -- Warner's QB rating over his last ten games was in fact lower than Bulger's despite Mok claiming the opposite -- remains true. So Mok, my apoligies if that last response sounded a bit nasty toward the end.
    Last edited by Nick; -06-10-2004 at 11:41 AM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  7. #112
    Bob L. Head's Avatar
    Bob L. Head is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    California, USA, Earth, Milky Way, The Universe
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    Interestingly enough, neither my previous ratings nor these new ratings using the method you described seem to match what Mok had as either QBs rating...
    I'm suspecting he may be throwing out the two games where Warner only had two attempts, and adding in the two last games of 2001. That's just speculation, though; Mok would have to answer that.
    Have some fondue, it's delicious.

  8. #113
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob L. Head
    I'm suspecting he may be throwing out the two games where Warner only had two attempts, and adding in the two last games of 2001. That's just speculation, though; Mok would have to answer that.
    I don't think that's the case, based on one of his replies:

    "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."

    But as you said, Mok would probably be the best person to answer this.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  9. #114
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Well, you win. You have thouroughly and completely exonnerated Marc Bulger from any and all mistakes he made last year. I was obviously watching the games wrong. He was apparently playing really well and I didn't know how to look at the situation.

    I don't bother with the positive quotes about Bulger because I'm not trying to make a point about his positive aspects. If that's what I was talking about I would try and dig some up. I still have trouble tracking down any kind of statistics based on guts and determination but apparently that's what Bulger's got going for him.

    I'll give you the fact that "Bulger" pulled out a victory against the Cardinals after throwing 4 interceptions. You're right, most qb's can't dig out of hole like that. There are a couple of reasons that make that the case. Most of the time when you throw 4 interceptions the team is so far behind that they can't come back. The fact that it happened against Arizona (have they ever intercepted anyone 4 times before?) and they couldn't score any points to take advantage of it, somehow doesn't diminish the fact that he threw the interceptions in the first place. You've dismissed comparisons I've made in the past because they weren't similar enough yet you put the 4 interception game by Bulger and the 4 interception game by Warner against Tampa Bay side by side as a comparison. It may have been jokingly but it was still put there. Aside from all of that, I would be interested to see if any other qb in the league threw 4 interceptions against Arizona and what the outcome was.

    It's interesting how you cry foul when Warner is used as a scapegoat, yet you're more than willing to blame the Rams' red zone problems on Bulger. And who was the one to bring up a double standard?
    I didn't blame the Rams redzone struggles on Bulger, I said Bulger struggled in the redzone. I cry foul because Warner is blamed for losses when the defense loses the lead and Bulger is credited for wins when the defense saves the game. That's a double standard.

    As a concluding note, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's a reason you only quote and respond to certain phrases and ignore others, like how I brought up that the schedule wasn't as easy as you tried to imply it was by showing how at least four of those teams boasted difficult passing defenses based on your covetted QB rating.
    First of all, I didn't invent the qb rating system. It's not mine in any way and I'm not the only one who uses it to judge a qb's performance. You act like I'm clinging to some imaginary, oddball thing that no one's heard of. It happens to be the standard used by every major sports outlet to rate qb's. Just because you don't think it's perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Secondly, I'm not debating the qb ratings that Bulger achieved. But to justify his struggles on what other qb's did seems a little askew. I see what you're saying, but just because Jeff Blake and Drew Brees struggled against a team doesn't justify Bulger struggling too.

    How easy did I imply it to be? It was an easy schedule against very few playoff teams. I don't count teams that "should" have been in the playoffs or they used to be good as actual playoff teams. The Rams came off of a losing season, were awarded an easier schedule because of it and a lot of their success was based on facing subpar teams. Was it a hard schedule? No. Was it statistically the weakest schedule ever faced? No, but I never said anything like that either. If a guess had to be made about the schedule being easy or hard I think most might agree "easy" to be more accurate.

    Speaking of, I'm still waiting to see how you got your QB rating for Warner during his last ten games.
    comp: 210 att: 329 yards: 2161 td: 5 int: 14

    I tried three different qb calculators and got three different answers. I usually use the same one for all of my stats but now that I've realized there's a discrepency I will have to figure out which one is the most accurate. 69.10(my regular calc), 69.98 (alternate calc) and 70.00(football.com calc). We're obviously using different stats to come to our numbers since I didn't get the same 65 that you did. I used the stats from footballreference.com so maybe they are incorrect. The above stats are from the NE, DEN, NYG, TB, DAL, WAS, PHI, CHI, NYG, DET games.

    What's your point with the Tony Banks comparisons? Again, even if they boasted a similar QB rating, there's a huge difference: wins. Banks went 2-8 in the ten game span you're referencing. Bulger went 7-3 in that span, including a seven game winning streak.
    My point is, the two qb's played equally during the same length of games, based on statistics, and one is thought of as the anti-christ and the other is lauded as the second coming. How can they play equally and be considered so differently? The qb play was the same, so obviously the team results occured for additional and seperate reasons. Bulger's marginal play was good enough to win against the teams the Rams faced in 2003, and Banks' marginal play wasn't good enough for the teams the Rams faced in 1998.

    It's my opinion that anyone who thinks Martz lost confidence in Bulger at that moment is a bit uninformed. The information countering that theory is well documented by Howard Balzer and I believe even in a Martz interview.
    This is from someone else's post but I'm curious about something. Are you basing your opinion about Martz not losing faith in Bulger/offense off of what Martz/Balzer said? If so, I think that may be a poor choice of reference. I will admit that Martz may have had little faith in the whole offense as opposed to just Bulger, but he definitely showed nothing of his former self when deciding to run off 30 seconds of clock at the 16 yard line. The fact that Bulger had thrown a couple of interceptions in the 4th quarter would lead me to believe that Martz's confidence was wavering if not lost. In addition to Faulk marching the Rams straight down the field on that particular drive makes the decision seem like one based on the qb's play. If the running game was working, the qb was struggling and you decide not to go for it, it seems like the clues fit well enough to make a decent argument at the very least.

  10. #115
    jjsram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Age
    47
    Posts
    107
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    I am also one that thinks that Bulger regressed as the season went on last year. Could conditioning be a factor in this? He's not the biggest of guys and when is the last time Bulger played 16 games in a season. Maybe he was physically and mentally fatigued at the end of last year.
    I wonder what his workout regimen has been this off-season?

  11. #116
    adarian_too's Avatar
    adarian_too is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Hollow
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    I will grant both Molkerman and Neil one thing in this debate ... you both unquestioningly have stamina ... now if our politicians would stay on point like these two ... well, excuse me I see some revenuers ...

  12. #117
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    Well, you win. You have thouroughly and completely exonnerated Marc Bulger from any and all mistakes he made last year. I was obviously watching the games wrong. He was apparently playing really well and I didn't know how to look at the situation.
    No need to be bitter, Mok. Clearly I saw the games differently than you did. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong. That makes us two different fans with two different perspectives.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I don't bother with the positive quotes about Bulger because I'm not trying to make a point about his positive aspects. If that's what I was talking about I would try and dig some up. I still have trouble tracking down any kind of statistics based on guts and determination but apparently that's what Bulger's got going for him.
    Perhaps that's the problem. During this discussion I've tried to be balanced and have agreed that Bulger does have some negatives working against him, but I've also tried to bring out the positive things he's doing. You're focused completely on the negatives.

    I think when you critique any player, it's important to try and find both positives and negatives in his game. If I was talking about Brandon Manumaleuna, there would be a lot of negatives listed. But I would certainly also take the time to list some positives that I think he has as well. I just think it's common courtesy to the player.

    The way you represent Bulger is startling. You compare him to Banks, you talk about how bad the end of his season was. I've gone out of my way to try and shed some light on some of that and clear up what I feel are some off-base accusations. No one is going to dispute that Bulger had bad runs during the end of the season, but I think it's important -- just as it is with Kurt in 2002 -- to look at why that happened. You seem to put the blame for Bulger's performances squarely on his shoulders, saying he regressed. I think there's more to that, just like there was more to Kurt's performances and losses than just Kurt.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I'll give you the fact that "Bulger" pulled out a victory against the Cardinals after throwing 4 interceptions. You're right, most qb's can't dig out of hole like that. There are a couple of reasons that make that the case. Most of the time when you throw 4 interceptions the team is so far behind that they can't come back. The fact that it happened against Arizona (have they ever intercepted anyone 4 times before?) and they couldn't score any points to take advantage of it, somehow doesn't diminish the fact that he threw the interceptions in the first place. You've dismissed comparisons I've made in the past because they weren't similar enough yet you put the 4 interception game by Bulger and the 4 interception game by Warner against Tampa Bay side by side as a comparison. It may have been jokingly but it was still put there. Aside from all of that, I would be interested to see if any other qb in the league threw 4 interceptions against Arizona and what the outcome was.
    Yes, most of the time four interceptions does put your team behind. It's fortunate that the defense played well and that Bulger himself helped give the Rams an early lead.

    But to say the Cardinals didn't take advantage of Bulger's mistakes is, again, incorrect. Look at the play by play of the game. Bulger's first three interceptions resulted in 17 points for the Cardinals. The only interception the Cardinals didn't score off of was the last. Really Mok, I'm not trying to be rude, but it would save us some time if you'd make sure some of these accusations are factual before making them.

    In terms of my four interception comparison, as I said, it was a joke. If you're going to seriously hold me to joke I made in passing, then go for it. If you've gotten to the point in this discussion where you can't even toss a joke in here or there or keep things friendly, then it's time for me to bow out completely. I didn't join this discussion to alienate anyone or make enemies, but to discuss reasonable points. I've apoligized when I felt I've come across as harsh or nasty in order to maintain what appeared to be a reasonable discussion. I hope you can accept the joke for what it was and not what you'd make it out to be.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I didn't blame the Rams redzone struggles on Bulger, I said Bulger struggled in the redzone. I cry foul because Warner is blamed for losses when the defense loses the lead and Bulger is credited for wins when the defense saves the game. That's a double standard.
    Again, that's not what you said at all. You said of Bulger: "he had trouble converting in the red zone," and that's not true. Look at Bulger's stats from inside the opponents' 20-yard line for the season. Bulger sports a QB rating of 83.6 inside the opponents' 19-yard line. He threw 15 touchdowns compared to two interceptions. His completion percentage isn't spectacular, but then again, he's not the only QB with a lower completion percentage in the red zone (Manning, Culpepper, Hasselbeck). If anything, Bulger was pretty darn good in the red zone. Nearly a fifth of his passes inside the 20 were for touchdowns! Again, to say Bulger struggled in the redzone is to blame him for the team's struggles. The redzone problems of the Rams can be better place, at least in my opinion, on the lack of solid blocking from the interior of the offensive line, tight end, and fullback. I believe those are key components to an efficient red zone offense, and all of them were weaknesses for the Rams last season. Despite that though, Bulger sported a fairly good QB rating and a phenominal TD/INT ratio in that area.

    And if you honestly think all of Warner's losses -- or at least those he's blamed for -- are because the defense lost the lead and that all of Bulger's wins were because the defense "saved the game," then I would suggest review what actually happened in these games. Yes, the defense played a role in every game being discussed, but the view you have is clearly biased and lacks factual support. Look at the Arizona game. If Bulger hadn't helped the Rams come out to an early lead, the defense's attempts to "save the game" would have been futile; the Rams would have been behind by too much. Look at Kurt's performance against the Eagles in 2002. The only touchdown the Eagles scored was a direct result of his interception. Had that not occured, the game would have been tied 3-3.

    Wins and losses clearly are a team effort. But to suggest that people are blaming Warner for losses that fall more on the defenses shoulders is laughable considering how many fans blame Bulger first and foremost for the playoff loss to Carolina, despite our defense giving up over 200 rushing yards and Jason Sehorn missing an open field tackle to save the game.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    First of all, I didn't invent the qb rating system. It's not mine in any way and I'm not the only one who uses it to judge a qb's performance. You act like I'm clinging to some imaginary, oddball thing that no one's heard of. It happens to be the standard used by every major sports outlet to rate qb's. Just because you don't think it's perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Secondly, I'm not debating the qb ratings that Bulger achieved. But to justify his struggles on what other qb's did seems a little askew. I see what you're saying, but just because Jeff Blake and Drew Brees struggled against a team doesn't justify Bulger struggling too.
    I never meant to imply the QB rating system was invaluable. What I tried to show was that I feel there were other stats that one could look at to gauge QB performance. When I suggested that, you said: "Attempts, passing yards and YPA are all part of that equation but can't be taken out of context to "fluff" a guys stats." I don't feel that's what's occuring at all, but you seemed to make it clear that the QB rating was the only thing you really valued as worthy. Hence, "your covetted QB rating."

    And why should comparing his performance to other QBs who faced a team be askew? Are you not comparing Bulger's performance to Warner's when trying to prove a point about Warner not being washed up? Or were you not comparing Tony Banks's QB rating to Bulger's when trying to make a comparison betweem them? How is this strategy fine for you to use, yet whenever I compare Bulger's performance to the performances of other QBs in the league against a certain team and show Bulger to have performed better than average, it's askew? Again, if we're talking about double standards...



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    How easy did I imply it to be? It was an easy schedule against very few playoff teams. I don't count teams that "should" have been in the playoffs or they used to be good as actual playoff teams. The Rams came off of a losing season, were awarded an easier schedule because of it and a lot of their success was based on facing subpar teams. Was it a hard schedule? No. Was it statistically the weakest schedule ever faced? No, but I never said anything like that either. If a guess had to be made about the schedule being easy or hard I think most might agree "easy" to be more accurate.
    Your statement was: "If some people feel that the flukey season the Rams had, squeaking by lesser opponents is something that's going to happen on a regular basis then they might be in for a rude awakening." That sounds to me as if you implied we had a fairly easy schedule. My point was that not everyone the Rams faced were "lesser opponents." There were a number of difficult defenses in there and a number of teams that showed were hard to beat at home in general. To say I'm claiming teams that should have made the playoffs or used to be good are playoff teams is a huge misrepresentation of my point. Minnesota was clearly a good football team last season, but you seem to shrug them off since they didn't make the playoffs.

    The bottom line is that with the parity in today's league, it's hard to tell which games are supposed to be easy victories and which aren't. Clearly the teams on the Rams' schedule were capable of putting up a fight not just against St. Louis but against other higher caliber teams. To ignore that

    Perhaps if a guess had to be made about the schedule's difficulty, more would side with the easy rating. But as I showed by taking the time to examine each team, the schedule definitely wasn't as easy as some might think. So while you seem to be basing your argument on what people would guess, I'm basing mine on what the actual teams did -- how they performed, who they've been able to beat in certain situations, how they stacked up statistically in the league. Which do you think would be more reliable?



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    comp: 210 att: 329 yards: 2161 td: 5 int: 14

    I tried three different qb calculators and got three different answers. I usually use the same one for all of my stats but now that I've realized there's a discrepency I will have to figure out which one is the most accurate. 69.10(my regular calc), 69.98 (alternate calc) and 70.00(football.com calc). We're obviously using different stats to come to our numbers since I didn't get the same 65 that you did. I used the stats from footballreference.com so maybe they are incorrect. The above stats are from the NE, DEN, NYG, TB, DAL, WAS, PHI, CHI, NYG, DET games.
    So I guess the two of us should begin saving up for funeral expenses now, because neither of us would be able to calculate a QB rating to save our lives.

    THAT WAS A JOKE!!! A JOKE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    My point is, the two qb's played equally during the same length of games, based on statistics, and one is thought of as the anti-christ and the other is lauded as the second coming. How can they play equally and be considered so differently? The qb play was the same, so obviously the team results occured for additional and seperate reasons. Bulger's marginal play was good enough to win against the teams the Rams faced in 2003, and Banks' marginal play wasn't good enough for the teams the Rams faced in 1998.
    Well, equally is not so easy to prove. As I mentioned in a previous response, Bulger's QB rating for the last ten games he played, based on Deacon's comments about calculating said rating, is a number of points higher than the rating you listed to Banks. The comparisons should end right there. In fact, based on the adjusted numbers I posted, Warner is closer to Banks than Bulger at this point.



    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    This is from someone else's post but I'm curious about something. Are you basing your opinion about Martz not losing faith in Bulger/offense off of what Martz/Balzer said? If so, I think that may be a poor choice of reference. I will admit that Martz may have had little faith in the whole offense as opposed to just Bulger, but he definitely showed nothing of his former self when deciding to run off 30 seconds of clock at the 16 yard line. The fact that Bulger had thrown a couple of interceptions in the 4th quarter would lead me to believe that Martz's confidence was wavering if not lost. In addition to Faulk marching the Rams straight down the field on that particular drive makes the decision seem like one based on the qb's play. If the running game was working, the qb was struggling and you decide not to go for it, it seems like the clues fit well enough to make a decent argument at the very least.
    I'm not just basing my opinion off of what Balzer and Martz said, but of what transpired in that game. Look at the game facts. The protection in the red zone was horrible.

    If Martz lost confidence in Bulger, he wouldn't have come out passing and passing aggressively on their first drive in OT. Bulger threw one shorter pass, but then followed that up with a longer strike to Bruce to move the ball. If you don't have confidence in your QB and you're in the playoffs, you don't make these calls. Martz did. That directly conflicts the theory that he lacked confidence in Marc.

    The fact of the matter is Bulger is the scapegoat for the Carolina loss. Since Martz didn't take a shot for the endzone, it's because of Bulger, not how the team struggled to put the ball in the endzone all day, thus suggesting an attempt at this point in the game would be equally futile. Look how long it took the Rams to put the ball in the endzone on their previous drive. The Rams were at the Panther 16-yard line with 4:47 to go. They didn't get into the endzone until a full two minutes later. That was their first time of being able to get into the endzone from a red zone attempt all day. They weren't able as a team to get into the endzone, and Balzer reports that a lot of that is because of missed protection assignments by Manu and Goodspeed.

    Based on this information, I think it would be clear that Martz wasn't losing confidence in Bulger alone, but the entire offense's ability to get into the redzone because of poor execution and lack of protection. What would have happened if Bulger drops back, Manu misses a block, and a linebacker nails Marc from behind and the ball pops loose? Everyone and their mother would have been on Martz's back for not tying the game and going to overtime. Martz recognized that there were problems that made red zone scoring difficult, but he knew his team could get into field goal position. He gambled and took the points to send the game into overtime, knowing that if given the chance, the offense could move into position to win the game with a kick.

    Again, I'm seeing no overwhelming evidence to suggest Martz lost faith in Bulger. The playcalling in overtime seems to suggest the exact opposite.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  13. #118
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    Molkerman and Neil
    Is it possible to argue for so long that one's name actually changes?
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  14. #119
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,532
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    ... now if our politicians would stay on point like these two ... well, excuse me I see some revenuers ...
    Careful what you say about revenuers. Those guys are everywhere.
    "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

  15. #120
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,532
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Ramsí Martz knew Bulger would be special

    Again, I'm seeing no overwhelming evidence to suggest Martz lost faith in Bulger. The playcalling in overtime seems to suggest the exact opposite.
    Sorry to interject in this two man tango, but just the fact that Martz decided to play for the tie instead of going for the win kind of suggests a lack of faith in at least the offense as a whole if not Bulger himself.
    "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

Similar Threads

  1. Linehan vs Martz Regime
    By STLRAMSFAN in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: -06-20-2006, 01:26 PM
  2. Bulger Healthy, Happy with New Staff
    By .ramfan. in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -02-16-2006, 11:37 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: -12-13-2005, 01:16 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: -05-01-2005, 05:29 AM
  5. Martz monkeys around with special teams
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -01-22-2005, 01:54 PM

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
  •