Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
  1. #16
    jkramsfan Guest

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    please stop the warner vs. bulger debate, warner took us to 2 super bowls and until bulger gets to one,he will always come in second.right or wrong thats the way it is, and also stop the he had a better team and he didnt win it himself crap.warner took over a 4-12 team and a team that hadnt had a winning record in what 10 years,so he wasnt handed a super bowl favorite when he started that season,bulger is our qb now and a very good one at that, lets give warner the respect he deserves and move on.warner will always be king of the hill until someone knocks him off it.


  2. #17
    RamJackson39 Guest

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    without Kurt we would have never made it to the Superbowl now would we? actually Marc has had all the fire power that a qb would need to get to the Superbowl again!
    1.I believe that Trent Green would have been able to put up similar, if not better, numbers and lead this team to the Super Bowl.

    2.Marc has had...A RT that seems to have put a hit out on him until Barron entered. A head coach who has decided that a QB is not worth protecting. The worst defense that I have seen in St.Louis in a long time. A RB in Marshall Faulk that has been suffering from knee injuries and hasn't been the same.

    Wow, why couldnt anyone win with that firepower?

  3. #18
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,795
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by jkramsfan
    and also stop the he had a better team and he didnt win it himself crap.warner took over a 4-12 team and a team that hadnt had a winning record in what 10 years,so he wasnt handed a super bowl favorite when he started that season,bulger is our qb now and a very good one at that, lets give warner the respect he deserves and move on.warner will always be king of the hill until someone knocks him off it.
    Well since I said he had a better team I guess this is directed at me, you should probably read my whole post where I gave Warner the repsect he deserves. I appreciate everything he did, he had the greatest 3 years of any QB.

    Facts are facts he didn't win it by himself, which it seems like that's all the Warner lovers keep coming back to, saying Warner won a SB, what has Marc done?

    Facts are facts Warner had the GSOT around him and Bulger has never had the GSOT around him. Warner took over a 4-12 team who just traded for one of the best RBs of all time, got Martz who is a brilliant OC, and drafted Holt, and also picked up Trent Green. So don't try to make it out like the Rams didn't vastly improve their team from 98 to 99.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    Some of the excuses made for Jared Cook are laughable.

  4. #19
    RamJackson39 Guest

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    I think the man who really was responsible for the GSOT in often overlooked. Marshall Faulk had the best year of any RB, ever, in 99'.

    Marshall began to get hurt. Warner started to play badly. Bulger comes in, plays better and wins the starting job. We dont owe Warner anything, the main reason for that Super Bowl was Faulk.

    Bulger is the better QB. Bulger is the starting QB. Why even bother having the discussion anymore? It's over.

  5. #20
    RamTime Guest

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Your forgetting one thing here. Warner is one hole hell of a lot tougher then Bulger. Bulger gets hit gets knocked out of the game. It took several hits to knock out Warner.

  6. #21
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,795
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by RamJackson39
    We dont owe Warner anything.
    Well I have to disagree with this statement.

    Although we have agreed on almost everything in our last few posts, Faulks value, Trent Green being able to win with the 99 team etc.

    We owe Warner our respect and gratitude for what he did and how he played for the Rams. When Green went down I thought here we go again I couldn't believe it. Warner stepped in and played lights out. We owe him all the good times and feelings we had from winning the Super Bowl.

    With that being said, as I have stated above Bulger is a great QB and has done more with less than Kurt has. I love them both, and I take nothing away from Kurt, he was great and was at the right place at the right time. Bulger is great, and it hasn't all come together for Bulger and the Rams yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    Some of the excuses made for Jared Cook are laughable.

  7. #22
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,806
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rams13
    what I'm not accepting is that Bulger is as good as people make him out to be.
    Highest rated passer in the NFC, fifth highest in the entire league, third in the league in completion percentage, eighth in the league in percentage of pass attempts that are touchdowns.

    These aren't people making him out to be these things. These are the facts. And he's doing it with the kind of protection that makes Peyton Manning wake up screaming at night in sweat-soaked linens.

    If you don't like how good people make him out to be, then how good do you think he is? The numbers seem to suggest he's pretty good, so I'm interested to see what would support the claim that he's not at that level.


    Quote Originally Posted by talkstoangels61
    actually Marc has had all the fire power that a qb would need to get to the Superbowl again!
    It's debatable whether or not he's had "all the fire power" that a QB would need to make a SB run. After all, we don't have a checklist of what those requirements are, so it's all opinion.

    Or is it? Maybe we could examine what the Rams had whenever they did make it to the Super Bowl, and that would help us determine what a QB for this team would need.

    First, he'd need a top ten ranked defense. In 1999 and in 2001, the Rams ranked in the top ten (actually the top seven) in both points allowed and yards allowed. The Rams during Bulger's time here haven't fielded a defense that has even sniffed the top fifteen.

    Second, he'd need protection. You've already admitted the unit protecting Bulger is inferior in comparison, so I'll move on.

    Next, he'd need a running game. In 1999 and in 2001, the Rams ranked fifth both years in total rushing yards gained, and second and first respectively in yards per attempt. Since taking the reigns in 2003, the Rams cracked the top fifteen once - 2004's yards per attempt average. That's it. So the run game hasn't been there.

    So, has he had "all the fire power" a QB needs? Again, I guess it's a matter of opinion, because any regular QB doesn't necessarily need those things to get to the Super Bowl.

    But in our offense, that's what it took to get to the Super Bowl twice in three years, and we don't have them now, nor have we had them at any time during Bulger's time as a starter. Heck, we aren't nor have we been even close. And even so, we were two wins away from being there in 2003, despite those missing pieces.


    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    People forget Trent Green was on FIRE before he went down.
    And also that when Green filled in during the 2000 campaign, he was a monster as well, playing eight games and amassing a 101.8 QB rating.

    The problem I find in these debates is people think that if you say something like this, you're bashing or disrespecting Warner.

    If I hated Kurt Warner or wanted to disrespect him, maybe I'd take down the framed Sports Illustrated SB34 issue from my wall or sell my three Warner jerseys. But saying something that isn't lavish praise toward someone doesn't mean you're disrespecting him.

    If I think Marshall Faulk was a more important piece in the GSOT than Warner, am I disrespecting Kurt? Maybe some actually think I am, but I'm not trying to, nor do I think I am. Kurt played a huge role in that Super Bowl run, and performed at the highest caliber. But if I honestly ask myself if the Rams get to and win the SB with another running back, I'd say no; but with another QB, maybe. Does that really disrespect Kurt? I don't think so, yet that's what we're told we do when certain things are said.

    The bottom line is this. Kurt Warner is a special player. I've never seen a QB do what Kurt did over the three GSOT years. He was an important cog in the machine that got us a Super Bowl championship, and I seriously doubt any Rams fan will forget that. However like all great things, it came to an end for many reasons, and I accept that. It's like a relationship from the past that you really liked but didn't work out. You have fond memories of those days, but you have to move on. You can't dwell on it or be bitter about it or hold every new girlfriend to the standards of the past, because that's just not good for you or anyone else, especially the new things that come along that themselves are good as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by RamTime
    Your forgetting one thing here. Warner is one hole hell of a lot tougher then Bulger. Bulger gets hit gets knocked out of the game. It took several hits to knock out Warner.
    Come on now, do you really believe that? Have you not seen how many times Bulger gets hit in a season? To say or imply he gets hit once and is knocked out just strikes me as a gross exaggeration. I'm concerned about his injuries and am starting to wonder about his long-term durability, but it's certainly not as bad as your post makes it out to be.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  8. #23
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,795
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    It's debatable whether or not he's had "all the fire power" that a QB would need to make a SB run. After all, we don't have a checklist of what those requirements are, so it's all opinion.

    Or is it? Maybe we could examine what the Rams had whenever they did make it to the Super Bowl, and that would help us determine what a QB for this team would need.

    First, he'd need a top ten ranked defense. In 1999 and in 2001, the Rams ranked in the top ten (actually the top seven) in both points allowed and yards allowed. The Rams during Bulger's time here haven't fielded a defense that has even sniffed the top fifteen.

    Second, he'd need protection. You've already admitted the unit protecting Bulger is inferior in comparison, so I'll move on.

    Next, he'd need a running game. In 1999 and in 2001, the Rams ranked fifth both years in total rushing yards gained, and second and first respectively in yards per attempt. Since taking the reigns in 2003, the Rams cracked the top fifteen once - 2004's yards per attempt average. That's it. So the run game hasn't been there.

    So, has he had "all the fire power" a QB needs? Again, I guess it's a matter of opinion, because any regular QB doesn't necessarily need those things to get to the Super Bowl.

    But in our offense, that's what it took to get to the Super Bowl twice in three years, and we don't have them now, nor have we had them at any time during Bulger's time as a starter. Heck, we aren't nor have we been even close. And even so, we were two wins away from being there in 2003, despite those missing pieces.
    Nick has done a nice job putting stats on what I have been saying in earlier posts. Marc hasn't had the defense to back him up. He hasn't had the kick return game. He hasn't had the run game, and he hasn't had the protection, and yet he still has played great for the Rams.

    The facts are this, Warner was awesome, he helped get us a Super Bowl. Like Nick said just because we give credit to Bulger does not mean we are disrespecting Warner. We owe Warner alot, for everything he has done.

    Bulger is the man now and he has done a spectacular job with less than what Warner had, so let's hope we can find the missing pieces and get the Rams back to the Super Bowl.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    Some of the excuses made for Jared Cook are laughable.

  9. #24
    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: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Those of you who keep debating this topic, I have only one question for you:

    1. Do you guys eat 5 day old pizza? It's as stale as this argument.

    Wow, those of you who keep the faith about this I have to give you props on one thing and one thing only: thinking that being admirable and ethical is prevelant in the NFL.

    It isn't. If it was, salaries would be guaranteed instead of bonus money. If it was, injuries would not be a factor in losing your position. If it was, the Ravens would not have skated out of Cleveland in the dead of the night. If it was, drug users would not be allowed to play in the NFL instead of just a four game suspension. Ehtics are nowhere near a pro football team, but for those of you who still preach about the ethical portion, preach on.

  10. #25
    psycho9985 Guest

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    Excellent points indeed !!

    I tell you, it is appropriately called Martz Madness. The guy is insane and his offense eats good QBs like a frog eats flies.


    If Martz used the offence in the way he himself intended it to be used,then another trophy in the case we would have.

  11. #26
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,675
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Let me start by saying I think Kurt Warner is one of the greatest men to ever play the game. Like most fathers, I'd love to see my sons play sports as they grow up, and maybe even make it to the highest level at some point. If they choose football, I'd want them to use Warner as their model of how to be not a football player, but a man who plays football (David Robinson if they choose basketball, and Fred McGriff if it's baseball......just for reference). Having said that, I can't believe there is still doubt in the minds of some that the Rams didn't pick the right QB.

    Since 2002

    Bulger - 65% completion - 271.2 ypg - 7.9 ypa - 1.4 TD/Int ratio
    Warner - 63.5% completion - 221 ypg - 6.9 ypa - 0.76 TD/Int ratio

    And on the record:

    Warner (6-22)
    Bulger (28-13)
    "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

  12. #27
    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: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by psycho9985
    If Martz used the offence in the way he himself intended it to be used,then another trophy in the case we would have.
    Yea, that loss to Carolina had nothing to do with the fact the defense of the Rams made DeShaun Foster look all pro and that Sehorn looked as lost as Little Red Riding Hood against Smith.....

    Or the fact that the defense allowed the Pats to march down the field to kick a game winning field goal. It's all about the offense, the game has nothing to do with how a defense performs.

  13. #28
    SFCRamFan Guest

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Why are we still discussing this crap?? We sound like disgruntled couples after a divorce. Move on...

  14. #29
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,951
    Rep Power
    170

    Re: Yesterday's game proved some points in the old Warner/Bulger debate...

    Good suggestion, SFC.

    That's enough of this argument.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •