We're not talking about the TEAM, we're talking about the QUARTERBACK. There is absolutely NO scientific way to show that Warner would not have had the same, or greater success in 2003 than Bulger. Warner was not given a chance, even in the face of Bulger's poor performance (even though the team was still winning). We were 12-4 IN SPITE OF Bulger's performance that year. If Martz had shelved his ego, and put in Warner against the Falcons after the bye week at the latest, I think we would have won out... at the very least we would have known for sure... but instead Bulger had a decent game against that 5-11 team, but then proceeded to throw 12 picks over the next 6 games, 10 in the 4 leading up to the Vikings game.. and Martz should have put Warner back in then... but Bulger pulled it together vs a team that was sporting a 2-4 record out of their bye, in route to a 9-7 lackluster season.
During 2002 and 2003.....The Rams were 18-3 with Bulger at QB; and 0-8 with Warner at QB. Sorry, mok, it's just facts.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WARNER WOULD HAVE DONE. MARTZ KICKED HIM TO THE CURB.
No.. the RAMS were winning. Bulger was throwing a bunch of picks. Warner was holding a clipboard.
As I said, that is from all games involving those QBs from '02-'03. I'm sorry Chris, but this is the NFL. One team wins, one team loses. There is no handicapping for a player that plays hurt or otherwise. However, unless you are in fact Martz or a team doctor, I would dare say you (nor anyone else) can not speak with any authority to the true physical status of any player at any given time. Yes they were. A 3rd stringer named Marc Bulger that was winning.
Perhaps the data is "quantatative", but it's far from meaningful when comparing the two quarterbacks.
Guys, I admire the loyalty to Kurt Warner. You two have taken a stand on an issue that is far from popular. A stand you take even in direct opposition to quantitative data.
Warner had one chance to lead the Rams to victory in 2003. He did receive a concussion during that chance, but his numbers other than the fumbles were pretty darn impressive. Bulger's numbers "quantitatively" were horrible over the rest of the season.
But to come back at this point and say the decision was wrong is just silly. Bulger was leading the team to wins, Warner was not.
Who says we would have had to wait 4 years? I think we would have won out the rest of the season in 2003 if Warner had taken over the team starting the week after the bye week, vs the Falcons.
assuming Warner would still be vertical had he stayed with the Rams, would you expect the Rams (and the fans) to wait FOUR YEARS for Warner to regain his status ahead of Bulger?