Results 61 to 75 of 81
Thread: Kurt warner
-
-09-23-2008 #61
Re: Kurt warner
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.
Originally Posted by Mok
As I said, that is from all games involving those QBs from '02-'03.
Originally Posted by atchris
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.
Originally Posted by atchris
Yes they were. A 3rd stringer named Marc Bulger that was winning.They were down to their 3rd string QB many times.
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. That kind of loyalty is rare and admirable. I too think he is a great guy (at least from his public appearance), and was a great Ram. 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. And as I have asked, I will ask again.......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?
"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
-
-09-23-2008 #62
Re: Kurt warner
I love Kurt, and always will. He is a good man of faith and an incredible talent.
That said, the main thing I notice is how much better the Dolphins are without Linehan. THIS is the relevant issue TODAY, not something from six years ago.Last edited by pikers; -09-23-2008 at 03:04 PM.
-
-09-23-2008 #63
Re: Kurt warner
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?
-
-09-23-2008 #64
-
-09-24-2008 #65
Re: Kurt warner
How so? Miami is 8-27 since he left.Good point!
-
-09-24-2008 #66
Re: Kurt warner
I'm not debating the team's record at that time, just the statement "Bulger was winning, Warner wasn't". Neither of them ever won on their own and Bulger, especially in 2003, wasn't showing that he was ready to start regardless of what the W/L record was.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.
You've said that it was unrealistic for the Rams to wait 4 years for Warner to come out of his funk. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the timetable would have been identical if he'd stayed with the Rams. He had to go through 3 coaches, 3 systems and all the personnel changes in that time and it wasn't like they were winning teams when he was playing either. Think about how Bulger has been adjusting to new personnel, poor o-line play and a new system this year. Or Brett Favre.
But, I've said before that I don't think staying with the Rams was Warner's best course of action because he and Martz, as far as I'm concerned, were at odds and there's just very little good that can come out of a situation like that. I also question whether or not he would have got the point where he'd adopt the gloves if he'd stayed in St. Louis and I think that's a major part of his resurgence. None of that has anything to do with how the Rams dealt with the situation. If it was all based on 2002 then I could at least stretch my imagination to agree with you but Warner was chained to the bench in 2003 when Bulger was exhibiting just as many errors and poor performances that got Warner demoted. Bulger was above reproach while Warner wasn't given a chance to win his job back.
Warner earned some pine time with all of his fumbles and Bulger earned a chance to start with his 2002 numbers but after 5-10 games of mediocrity Warner should have been given one last shot. Especially when you consider what he'd done for the team. I just can't agree with the idea that an injury riddled 8 game stretch of Warner's career was enough for the Rams to legitimately determine he was finished. More so when you consider their track record at evaluating players.
-
-09-24-2008 #67
Re: Kurt warner
Ok, honestly, seriously...
With all that is going on with this team, all the crap that is happening...
Who cares about this? Really? What if's and how fors are not going to fix our team as it stands now. There are probably less relevant topics to the current Rams franchise, but it's hard to think of one right now.
-
-09-24-2008 #68
Re: Kurt warner
I'll remember what this FO and Martz did forever. It wasn't right, and it's repeating itself with Linehan's benching of Bulger.
They don't know how to treat and value people; it's biting them on the butt, and it affects us as fans. (but if it does, imagine how it affects the players!)
-
-09-24-2008 #69
Re: Kurt warner
I can provide a link to all of the Bulger getting benched threads or fire Linehan or the defense sucks topics if it'll help you out.With all that is going on with this team, all the crap that is happening...
Who cares about this? Really? What if's and how fors are not going to fix our team as it stands now. There are probably less relevant topics to the current Rams franchise, but it's hard to think of one right now.
This particular subject is relevant because a) it's happening all over again and b)it was never truly resolved.
-
-09-24-2008 #70
-
-09-24-2008 #71
Re: Kurt warner
"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
-
-09-24-2008 #72
Re: Kurt warner
Since the conclusion of his hit TV show, Tony Soprano is doing a pretty nice job in Miami as well.
-
-09-25-2008 #73
Re: Kurt warner
D'Marco Farr adds to the discussion, via his interview with Ramwraith:
What HE said.Richbert88 wrote (through proxy):
Do you think the Rams made the right decision to trade Kurt Warner and go with Marc Bulger ? You were there.
Farr: Richbert88 no way shape or form do I ever trade Kurt Warner, period. Big mistake! He will probably have Arizona knocking on the door of the playoffs this season. I do like Marc Bulger though. If I could choose a quarterback to lead my team, I would be comfortable with him as long as I had a great offensive line and a stellar running game.
-
-09-25-2008 #74
Re: Kurt warner
This team has done this crap to almost all the players worth anything.Kurt Warner should have gotten as many chances as he wanted to come back.Two time mvps and superbowl mvps should get a little respect from the fo and coaching staff.Bad karma sucks
-
-09-26-2008 #75
Re: Kurt warner
Similar Threads
-
PaRamFan48 Chistmas '99
By RamWraith in forum RAM TALKReplies: 5Last Post: -03-18-2006, 11:18 PM -
Warner article--sure to drum up a debate. Interesting read
By RamWraith in forum NFL TALKReplies: 9Last Post: -05-17-2005, 12:40 AM -
The Best of the Best: A Football Simulation (come join!)
By Nick in forum FANTASYReplies: 48Last Post: -07-01-2004, 09:49 PM -
Kurt Warner – A Fond Farewell To A Great Man
By RamDez in forum NFL TALKReplies: 4Last Post: -06-18-2004, 10:23 AM -
Interesting Takes From Warner & Coughlin
By r8rh8rmike in forum NFL TALKReplies: 2Last Post: -06-10-2004, 11:06 PM




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote






Bookmarks