The REAL facts about Marc Bulger, and one opinion

[r8rh8rmike]

One minute you wanna discuss it, then the next minute you don't.

Hmm. You mean like starting threads that rip Bulger, then "removing" yourself from debates because others disagree with you?

The Bulger defenders want to control what people think

I'm not sure that asking for claims or statements to be backed up with something more substantial than "Bulger Sux" qualifies as thought control.

So, I've decided that from now on, I will not respond to any blind Bulger defender from this point forward. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

These types of promises are usually difficult to keep, but it's probably a good thing you've given yourself the wriggle room of determining whether a post is from a "blind Bulger defender" or "the unreasonable". Good luck.

[ScottD413]

So he's not Brett Favre. Is that what you're getting at? It seems like these conversations boil down to something along the line of "We want Marc to be like Brett Favre"

God forbid!

Marc throws enough INTs as it is!

[Nick_Weasel]

I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on Bulger here on Clanram (or anywhere else in print) and to be honest I skip over a lot of the Bulger threads here because of the pissing match that inevitably results. But there are some things that are pretty clear:

1. Both sides of the Bulger divide are too quick to speak in hyperbole. There is a middle ground between "Bulger is one of the all-time greats" and "Bulger sucks" and it is highly likely that's where the truth lies.

2. People who criticize Bulger without acknowledging the lack of help from the other 10 players on offense are balanced by those who talk about Bulger's great seasons without acknowledging that he had up to 4 future HOF players on offense with him (Pace, Faulk, Bruce, Holt). Put me on the field with those guys and I'd look like a decent QB, or put Peyton Manning behind our O-line the past 2 years and he'd look pretty mediocre too.

3. It's unfair to ask for "facts" that prove Bulger is no good. The nature of football analysis is that it is based on observations that are not easily quantified. Stats are highly skewed by the quality of play of the other 21 people on the field, the coaches, the weather, the era, the rules, etc. So any type of good analysis is going to go beyond these stats and look at the way a player performs apart from the stats that result. This is not always quantifiable but that does not make it purely subjective or useless.

[ScottD413]

I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on Bulger here on Clanram (or anywhere else in print) and to be honest I skip over a lot of the Bulger threads here because of the pissing match that inevitably results. But there are some things that are pretty clear:

1. Both sides of the Bulger divide are too quick to speak in hyperbole. There is a middle ground between "Bulger is one of the all-time greats" and "Bulger sucks" and it is highly likely that's where the truth lies.

2. People who criticize Bulger without acknowledging the lack of help from the other 10 players on offense are balanced by those who talk about Bulger's great seasons without acknowledging that he had up to 4 future HOF players on offense with him (Pace, Faulk, Bruce, Holt). Put me on the field with those guys and I'd look like a decent QB, or put Peyton Manning behind our O-line the past 2 years and he'd look pretty mediocre too.

3. It's unfair to ask for "facts" that prove Bulger is no good. The nature of football analysis is that it is based on observations that are not easily quantified. Stats are highly skewed by the quality of play of the other 21 people on the field, the coaches, the weather, the era, the rules, etc. So any type of good analysis is going to go beyond these stats and look at the way a player performs apart from the stats that result. This is not always quantifiable but that does not make it purely subjective or useless.

Agreed. However I do not believe Holt is a HOFer.

[Nick_Weasel]

Agreed. However I do not believe Holt is a HOFer.

Yeah probably not, but there's a chance he could make it. In any case, I covered my tracks by writing "up to" 4 Hall of Famers.

[r8rh8rmike]

Both sides of the Bulger divide are too quick to speak in hyperbole. There is a middle ground between "Bulger is one of the all-time greats" and "Bulger sucks" and it is highly likely that's where the truth lies.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen anyone say Bulger is one of the all-time greats or for that matter, one of the best now. Some have presented stats that place him among the all-time greats in certain categories, but not one of them. I have seen more than a few say "Bulger sux". Regardless, you do make a valid point.

It's unfair to ask for "facts" that prove Bulger is no good. The nature of football analysis is that it is based on observations that are not easily quantified.

Again, you make a very valid point, but I think the emphesis has been to ask for something more substantial than "Bulger sux", as opposed to cold hard facts.

All in all, a well presented, well thought out, reasonable post. Nice job.

[RebelYell]

But if the organization is looking past this year, then why not get the QB of the future now? Why get a OT to simply protect a QB on his way out?

The Rams have a running game. They had to have a rebuilt offensive line if they are going to compete. Plus if you stick a rookie out there with a horrible offensive line, it's been shown to pretty much be a waste of time.

[ScottD413]

But if the organization is looking past this year, then why not get the QB of the future now? Why get a OT to simply protect a QB on his way out?

I think the reasoning is probably to get a solid line in place first. Being a rookie QB is hard enough without getting creamed every play. It would make sense to me that you get a solid line and effective ground game in place first in order to make the transition easier for your rookie QB.

[shower beers]

They won't let me give you rep again yet, Weasel but I have to agree with your post. I too have not gotten into the middle of things here because both sides seem to be stuck on their extremes and refusing to compromise.

The long and short of it, is that neither side is going to win, or even come to a complete conclusion. There's just too many variables that one cannot measure on both sides to finalize the argument. We should just be trusting our FO is making the best decisions for the team's present and future.

[btimsah]

You have been asked consistently to provide contextual analysis to explain your position that Bulger 'Sucks'. You have consistently failed to do this, instead relying on a single statistic to make definitive statements.

Now even if we were to accept that statisitics in isolation could be used this way,the statistic that you've chosen to use is QB rating. Many people have attempted to demonstrate that this statistic is influenced to a large degree by some fairly prime factors, namely offensive line, Defence and special teams.

This is something you've discounted in the main by referring to other quarterbacks around the league, Roethlisberger in particular. As Rammiser amongst others has demonstrated this isn't an effective comparison, given the relative strengths of each teams resepctive units.

Consequently, people feel that its next to impossible for you to pass off what is in effect your OPINION (Using your own emphasis), which incidentally, you are perfectly entitled to voice within moderated constraints, as a FACT. This is where the tension lies.

It is not a FACT that Bulger sucks, its perfectly disputable, it is rather, your OPINION. One which many people NOT unreasonably, disagree with.

On a further note, I think its a little inconsistent to complain of overly emotional responses when you yourself resort to '..sunshine pumpers' and 'blind Bulger defender(s)".

I haven't seen any moderator acting in any way designed to silence this debate, they have however taken the opportunity to disagree with you. Its often the measure of a control freak that they seek to change the nature of the debate or the game when its not going their way and I'm afraid that whilst I've detected a sniff of 'control freakery' in this thread, it hasn't been from any of the moderators.

Sorry, Fat Pang I am not going to waste anymore time arguing with you or anyone else about this. I am done with it and will state my opinion as freely as I feel. You are, however more than welcomed to argue with someone else.

[PeoriaRam]

Agreed. However I do not believe Holt is a HOFer.

O/T

7 Pro Bowls, 1 ring, ONLY receiver in league history to crack 1300 yards six years in a row, holds the record for most consecutive 90+ catch seasons, the only receiver besides Marvin Harrison to crack 1600 yards in multiple seasons, and the fastest player to 10,000 and 11,000 yards.

He's currently 14 on the career receiving list, but should, barring catastrophic injury, get to 10 this season (needs 539 to pass Andre Reed).

He's an HOFer.

[HUbison]

why dont you give us one for the supporters we all would like to hear it I dont support or bash bulger just want to know

I have no need to give one since I am not the one who made the claim. You will remember, the claim I questioned was...

I think one of Bulgers biggest things is that he is not a leader.

I am curious whether that opinion was based on anything substantive or simply pulled out of thin air.


However, in the spirit of discussion, I will give you evidence that Bulger IS a leader.

1. He has been the starting QB for this team for the past 7.5 years. Not once has the organization or coaching staff tried to replace him. No first day rookie QBs to take over. No big time free agent QBs to move in. For all that time, the organization has been content to keep Bulger as the head of their offense.

2. On multiple occasions Bulger has been voted a team captain. Voted by his peers. The very men he, as captain, leads.

3. Not one example of a story reported on how Bulger has "lost the lockerroom" or is "looked down upon" by his fellow Rams. Not even the proverbial "inside source" or "anonymous tip" has come to anyone with a position to report.



Oh, I'm sorry. You asked for one and here I've gone and given three. My apologies.

[maxxdigger]

I didn't mean to imply just you I would like to hear supporters reason why they think he'sa leader

My own opinion on his leadership ability is he cant get barron from jumping offsides on every other play

once again my own opinion
1. doesn't show leadership, The point you just made points out that organization and coaching staff never tried to replace him, But got replaced themself. Just had to point that out, Not a great arguement on that on.

2.I would agree with that one for the most part but to me doesn't prove leadership in totall regards

3.There really wasn't a story that the players didn't deny about coach linehan and "lost the lockeroom"

when you ask people to show stuff like leadership it is really hard to come up with one when you got a quiet guy like mark.

I hope he does well

[dgr828]

At this point and time for Marc Bulger, his and the teams concern is if he'll be ready the for the start of the season in Seattle. If he does start he's sure to favor his injuried finger. Will Bulger and the Rams have a gameplan in place to attack a Seahawk defense upgraded with the signing of Aaron Curry.
It could be debated, the fact that Marc Bulger has had his finest moments on Qwest Field.
We all know Bulger has put up some great numbers, epecially early in his career, but it has been most unfortunate the bad luck the Rams QB has had to go through, while losing the confidence that fateful Rams fans have in him.

What's desired to come from a fans Quarterback is someone who can basically lead the way....
Someone who can be counted on to come through....
Someone who will make those around him go through a wall for him.
Not to say Bulger doesn't have some of these qualities, but the lack of success that is generated from this team doesn't speak well and calls into question Bulgers leadership.

The NFL is a star driven league, All the great QB's have that it! That Drive, That gusto, That Mojo that can get his team going despite any circumstances.
Marc Bulger seem to have that early on in his career, but lately it just seems that he's stuck on SUX! A Fact that has Rams fans at each others throats. Which is why a tag such as "Bulger SUX!" really needs no facts to back it up, that it! Right there! You've got! YOU got just the Facts, MA'AM!

AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CURE FOR SUX......

SUXCESS!!!

GO MARC BULGER! GO RAMS!

[HUbison]

My own opinion on his leadership ability is he cant get barron from jumping offsides on every other play

So now Barron's false starts are Bulger's fault. Intriguing.

1. doesn't show leadership, The point you just made points out that organization and coaching staff never tried to replace him, But got replaced themself. Just had to point that out, Not a great arguement on that on.

So you think Martz, Linehan, Haslett, and the various FO officials were all let go because of Marc Bulger? They were let go because they believed Bulger to be a leader?

2.I would agree with that one for the most part but to me doesn't prove leadership in totall regards

And how exactly would one show leadership in......"totall regards"?

3.There really wasn't a story that the players didn't deny about coach linehan and "lost the lockeroom"

Actually, if you recall there were at least two incidents of player's having sideline "discussions" with Linehan. As I remember, once with Jackson and another with Bulger.

when you ask people to show stuff like leadership it is really hard to come up with one when you got a quiet guy like mark.

Actually, it's not hard at all if one were only inclined to see it.