Marc Bulger better than Kurt Warner?? WTF?
 

I can't believe Mike Martz said that about Bulger!? That's the most unprofessional thing a coach can do.... a total slap on the face. Warner has 1 SB under his belt, Bulger has none.

Ugh, get 'em Seahawks!!

Well, it would look kinda dumb for the guy to say Warner is better considering he cut the guy in June. That would be admitting to a mistake, and we all know Martz does not make mistakes (in his own mind anyway).

That's ridiculous

yeah, that's a great measure. ergo, trent dilfer is better than dan marino.

well, Bulger doesn't exactly suck (I feel compelled to defend a fellow WVU alum)

Marc bulger would be an excellent backup QB, I have yet to see a single play that shows me he really is a starting calibur qb. That said, i also believe that hasselback is in the same boat. he does not impress me in the slightest.

And honestly, who really listens to Martz anyway? the man is so self riteious is scares me...

Come on, you have yet to see a single play that shows Bulger is starting caliber?

Not one. I admit, I expect a lot more of Quarterbacks than most people.

Well, I can't even respect your opinion on anything football if you stand behind a statement as absurd as that.

The guy had a QB rating of 93.7- lets give him a break, shall we ?

Whats so absurd? both these teams field quality backups as their starting QB's, its an opinion and its quite honestly not that absurd. A number of NFL teams do this, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, Carolina, those are just off the top of my head.

Realize that as I grew up with the NFL I got to enjoy the likes of Ken Anderson, Dan Fouts, brian Sipe, Richard Todd, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Brett Favre, and many others. THESE are the guys I consider starting QB material. PLayers that not only make the plays they have to but create the plays they need to to make magic happen.

I watch both hasselback and Bulger and its all I can do not to fall asleep. These guys aren't starting material, they've also rans.

If you can't respect my opinion that's your problem, not mine. I've racked up 30 years of watching the NFL and built my opinions based on those years. if you can't respect that I don't know what you ever will respect.

:eek:

Brian Sipe was a one man miracle in cleveland for a few years. yes he didn't light up the league for a decade, but for his time, he was amazing to watch.

have you seen Carolina play? Dellhome has to be one of the more "magical" QB's in the NFL. He's made more big plays than any QB over the last 2 years.

To be truthful, probably not enough to stick him in this group immediately. He popped into my head while I typed that because of the Saints game last week. I really didn't see anything special out of him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt at this point =)


EDIT: and to help people get a grasp of my opinion I did try to clarify in an earlier post that I honestly expect a LOT more from regular starters than what these guys can or will ever offer their teams.

Render, I'm kind of surprised. Hasselbeck seems to be the kind of QB you'd like, he's very good at being slippery in the pocket, escaping situations where most QB's would go down to sacks, and makes plays out of nothing (if his receivers don't drop the ball).

Today was mild compared to most of the season, but if his receivers don't drop so many balls, he'd be back in the Pro Bowl this year (ie: First pass to D.J., should be 1-1 for about 10 yards, instead, he's 0-1 with an Int).

I've never been a big fan of Bulger, but if the boy has time, he seems to be able to make pretty much all the throws, the one today that he dropped in over 2 layers of Seahawks and in front of a 3rd to his receiver was a pretty throw.

That said, I'd still take Hass over Bulger personally because of his ability to improvise, and his toughness.

You would be an excellent backup speller. Wow. Look at these guys stat lines and tell me they aren't starting "calibur" quarterbacks.

#1 I never said I could TYPE, since my ability to spell is actually quite good.

#2 Who gives a flying fuck if I can type anyway? if you understand what I mean, then my typing is irrelevent.

#3 Stat lines are deceptive. Do you consider Jon Kitna a starting CaliBUR quartreback? =) yes he has been a starter, yes he's tough, yes he put up amazing stats last season, but he's still not at the same level of what *I* expect from a starting QB.

Definition of 'Starting Caliber' QB = One of the top 32 QB's in the NFL

So, are there 32 QB's better than Bulger in the league? Cause if not then....

Sure you don't have to spell well but to say something as bold as neither Marc Bulger nor Matt Hasselbeck deserve to be starting quarterbacks in this league, back it up with something.

Then keep your comments to the point instead of being a smart ass and insulting me to get attention.

And I am backing it up:

1: its my opinion and I qualified that opinion by stating that my standards are MUCH higher than most peoples

2: I listed out players with whom i compare starting quarterbacks abilities and in said comparison these players do not measure up.

3: I'm relying on 30 years of information comparing players and their abilities, what they show on the field, not simple stat lines which as I said before can be deceiving.

4: this is a SUBJECTIVE idea, there is no objective, substantive data which you can truly use to compare players like this. You have to take what you see and make your opinion based on that.

dola, also i NEVER stated they didn't deserve the job they have, I simply said they weren't what I consider starting material, when you consider that there are 32 teams in the NFL I doubt that even half of them have what *I* consider starting caliBUR quarterbacks. There generally aren't enough to go around, so many teams must play what *I* consider a quality backup as their starter.

I'd rather have 26 other QB's starting for me... so I guess they technically qualify.

And I had no idea Seneca Wallace was a backup QB.

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerindex/POS_QB some of those names shocked me that they were on teams... it shows that there should probably be about 5 less NFL teams.

what do you consider starting quality? Pro-Bowl calibur players?

RendeR - You are right, it is subjective but you mentioned that they would make good "backups" but the players you mentioned are hall-of-famers. Not every good, starting QB needs to be that high quality. Right? Since you hold everybody to higher standards doesn't mean these two players, who played GREAT in this game, aren't starting caliber.

You are entitled to your opinion and I shouldn't of attacked your spelling. My bad.

I appreciate the apology, thank you.

Also, did you WATCH the Seattle vs St Louis game? What did you see that looked GOOD let alone great about the QB play?

read the thread, I listed a number of them.

well technically, Bulger's QB rating was 97 and Hasselbeck's was 93... so they played better than average.

Yes after looking over the game stats, their stat lines weren't bad at all. I sat ehre watching the game and just felt disgusted with how both teams played, which isn't necessarily the Quarterback's fault.

I WATCHED the whole Rams - Seahawks game and I saw alot to like about Bulger. He played his ass off. Personally, who gives a shit if he's better or worse than Kurt Warner? It's irrelevant, Kurt's gone and Bulger is our QB.

Some of Bulger's passes today were spectacular. Hasselbeck wasn't bad, his receivers need to hold onto the ball.


Todd

Hmmmm, funny, having watched the game (as a Seattle fan), I was fairly impressed by most of the throws Bulger made, and Hasselbeck (especially in the second half) was pretty much bang on (aside from that brutal throw on a 3rd down audible in the early fourth quarter to Jackson where he had to wait an extra second before throwing to his right for his 3rd incompletion of the second half). I really thought Hasselbeck was showing his ability to improvise and make something out of nothing in a lot of situations while finding DJ and Mili in seemingly any kind of coverage.

I'd say Bulger is awesome. Hasselbeck is also decent. Who are the 26 quarterbacks better than Bulger?

I did watch the whole game and I thought they played very well. Not Dan Marino or Peyton Manning-like but very efficient.

That's the funniest statement I've ever heard of, thanks for the laugh. I bet the coaches of 20 other teams think that as well, make that 21 now.


Todd

I don't see why. making the playoffs doesn't mean you have a good QB... Hell, Trent Dilfer won a super bowl throwing 12 td's and 11 INT's in 9 games.

Bulger was in my freshman class at WVU, so I have seen a lot of him. While he was there, he set nearly all of the QB records while playing with Amos Zereoue in a pretty balanced pro set.

I have not been his biggest fan (b/c we never seemed to put it all together with a pretty talented group), but he is very solid and from what I have seen of him in the NFL, he still pretty much has the same game. Extremely accurate from the pocket, average arm strength, very well prepared, knowledgeable about the plays, but makes very bad throws when pressured and gets injured pretty often.

I would say that with 32 teams in the league, he is in the top half of the NFL's starters. He has put up solid stats with a less-than-healthy Faulk for the past few seasons, won some playoff games (look at the big names that have won fewer playoff games than he has), and worked with a difficult, and at times, dysfunctional coach.

ummm... this was Bulger's first playoff win if I'm not mistaken.

I guess 3964 yards passing and 21 td's in 14 games is a terrible QB.??

Ok.....


Todd

Yeah, considering this is the first year he was a full-time starter. I guess he is 1-1 in playoff games.

so... last year he wasn't a full time starter?

You are correct, he took us to 12-4 last year, which led to a bye and then a double OT loss to Carolina. I would explain why that was Martz fault, but I won't make excuses.


Todd

Yes, he started 15 games after the Warner first game debactle.


Todd

Warner started the first game and threatened at different times throughout the year. We had a bye and lost to Carolina so he is 1-1 in playoff games. What a keeper stat.

I said there are QB's I'd rather have, either by stats or because they play in big games, or I just have a better feel about them. I also think Bulger is a system QB who would struggle under a different coach. Put him on Carolina and I think he struggles mightily with only Moose catching. Put Delhomme on St. Louis and everyone declares him the second coming of Favre with Bruce and Holt catching him. Its my opinion that there are QB's I'd rather have, just like its your opinion that you'd rather have him over other QB's.

Todd, they are just haters man. It is hard to try to convince people of something with nothing to go on.

well he didn't start 2 games this season, so he's still not a full time starter.

Twist it however you want, I was just pointing out the fallacy that:
A) He'd one numerous playoff games;
B) He wasn't a full-time starter last year.

If you start 15 games a year, you're a full-time starter.

I would rather have a few QB's too but Bulger is doing just fine for us so I am not going to complain. I do have a problem with people saying that the Rams made the wrong decision on their starting quarterback and saying that Bulger is not as good as Kurt Warner. Again, Bulger IS better than Warner, he may not be as good as Warner WAS in '99.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but it just amazes me how every single person that hates the Rams tries to discredit what they do.

Good way to interject into a conversation. A person who refutes claims and tries to explain their own position is just a "hater". Forgive me for not worshipping a player on your favorite team.

And it was a good game by Hass and Bulger, not a great. They did what they had to do with a totally inept running attack behind both of them.

You know how many times I've heard the, "If QB X played anywhere else he would suck." comment?

I guess Chandler did so well when he started in place of Bulger this year.


Todd

Wow. This conversation is over. If a guy gets hurt he doesn't get replaced. Bulger wasn't the starter in week one last year. Then Warner played bad and got hurt. How could you say he was a full-time starter. But I guess you are proving our point for us by stating he led us to 12 wins.

I never said Bulger was better/worse than Warner... frankly, I'm of the impression that Warner had a freaky single season, another solid season (good completion% but a lot of INT's), and then he crashed back to earth.

Bulger made some great passes, as did Hasselbeck.. although Hasselbeck didn't make near as many tight coverage passes as Bulger did today. I thought that last pass he made was a TD though.

Todd

They didn't do well because of an inept running game, but because they realized that passing the ball would be to their best interest because it was working so well. For the record, I was not calling you a 'hater' for not worshiping Bulger, just making a point that discredits what he has accomplished.

Ok, you need to clear up the post.

You said he wasn't a full-time starter last year b/c warner started but was hurt. I merely confirmed that Bulger, by your definition, could not be a full time starter this year because he was hurt this year and missed 2 games.

I'm of the opinion he's been a full-time starter for 2 years now.

Right and this is his first year of being a full-time, undisputed #1 starting quarterback for the Rams. That is what I am saying and that is true. Not being the #1 QB opening last year and to have Warner fill in another game simply means that he was always right there ready to take his job back when Bulger faltered, but he never did. And I didn't say Bulger took over because he was hurt. I said he played bad and was banged up.

This is his first year being a full-time starter. You still haven't defended your point that this was Bulgers first playoff win. He only had one other playoff start.

Perhaps it was a combination of the two. Combined, the teams rushed (excluding QB rushing as thats normally scrambles) 42 times for 147 yards, or 3.5 ypc. Thats not particularly good.

Right, but is that why they played well? No.

Whatever, we are getting into some pointless converstation now. I think Bulger is good and you think he isn't. Fine.

what do I have to defend? I was merely replying to Swggs's statement of:

I said this was his first playoff win, not one of many. The only big name I can think of who has won less (among active QB's) is Roes-whatever and Eli Manning. Has Pennington or Brees, I don't really plan on football-referencing this at the moment. I'll look over it in a few, but right now he's at the bottom of wins for big-time QB's... not necesarilly his fault, as Carolina was on an insane roll and Faulk couldn't run on Carolina that game thus putting it all on Bulger, but the 3 INT's last year didn't help.

Yeah, my bad. I didn't see you were responding to that post. Sorry about that.

no big deal. He's 21-10 as a starter I think (or somewhere around there), so if he keeps winning, it really shouldn't matter if he's a great QB or a poor one I guess... kind of like Michael Vick

I am sorry for getting so defensive but it really chaps my ass when I see posts like the original one saying that the Rams made the wrong decision on their future starting QB because Warner had an amazing year and won a Super Bowl and Bulger has been playing for 2 years and hasn't won one. Under that reasoning, every starting QB that doesn't win a SB in their first year should be run out of town. AH!

I must add that I love Kurt Warner for what he did here. I will always love him for that but even he should admit that the Rams are better off with Bulger under center now.

eh, I don't think he's a good QB, but oh well... I didn't think Troy Aikman was either and he only won 3 or 4 super bowls... I still miss my Steve Young, the ultimate non-system QB :p

My bad... I thought he had won a game in last season's postseason, too.

Warner got the shaft, but that's another discussion altogether. Now that Bulger is our QB, I'm with him all the way.

We won today and for that I'm a happy camper.


Todd

Since we seem to be making the argument based on how we "feel" about a guy and not just his stats I'll throw in my two cents. First I do agree that stats alone do not make the great or very good player, however in order to put up about 4,000 yards in 14 games I do believe a man does indeed have some exceptional skills which IMHO does make him a legit starting qb in the NFL. IMO he is in the top 15 now and if he improves from this year to next as much as he did last year to this he'll be knocking on the door of the top ten. Now keep in mind top ten doesn't mean "great". In my almost 40 years of watching football I believe there are only 2-4 great qb's around at a time. 60's Star, Unitas, Namath?... 70's Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton?... 80's..Montana and Marino... 90's Elway,Young, Aikman, Favre..00's Manning, Brady. These are names that will still come to mind 20 years from now.

I don't think anyone is saying Bulger belongs in that group but will he be remembered as a very good qb of his day like Roman Gabriel, Sonny Jurgensen, Billy Kilmer, Jim Plunkett, Brien Sipe, Warren Moon, Boomer Esiason? IMHO he has a pretty good shot.

With regard to systems, I would say there is nothing wrong with being a system qb. It's only smart to put a man in a situation where he can succeed, that's good coaching. I would also submit that one of the greatest qb's of all time was "only a" system qb and that's Joe Montana.

Take away Rice, Roger Craig, all the great recievers he had, and the west coast offense and he would struggle too. Put Joe on the Raiders of the late 60's (do you remember them? we don't throw deep because we have Daryl Lamonica, we got Daryl Lamonica because we throw deep) and he wouldn't be the all time great that he was.

Some qb's could play in any system and be great. Some can only be great if they play in a system tailored to their particulat skills and strengths. Either way it comes down to the numbers they produce and the wins they put up escpecially in the playoffs. Bulger won one today and over the next couple of
weeks and the next few years we will find out for sure if he is just a good qb or on the verge of being a very good qb.

I never once said they made the wrong choice. What I said was that it's unprofessional for a coach to say something like that. Kurt Warner gave the Rams 3 good years with 1 being a SB win. Now granted, Bulger hasn't been in the league as long as Warner, but for a coach to say that he's better than Warner when he hasn't proven himself is a complete slap in the face. Now do you understand what I'm saying? Please don't read in between the lines... read EXACTLY what I write.

Huh? :confused:

What's the context? On the face of it, it's a perfectly reasonable comment to make, considering Warner took a nosedive with the Giants while Bulger has been solid for the Rams. I'd have to presume that the remark wasn't made without some kind of question or comment from the media, which is rather different from if Martz volunteered it (in which case, while accurate, I'd agree it's in poor taste).

Sure, Warner won them a super bowl. The last time he had them there was 2001. Living on past glories is no way to run a football team.

Well said. Adding, what is wrong with backing your current quarterback that might give him a little added confidence? I am sure Kurt Warner wasn't hurt by the statement.

A couple of notes :
- Brian Sipe (although I never saw him player) earned an NFL MVP award.
- I remember Mad Martz once saying "Kurt Warner is one of the best Quarterbacks ever to play the game. At some point, people will come to realize that we are watching a legend".

OK...so first he kicks out "the legend" about a year after saying this comment and now he goes on saying "Bulger is a better quarterback than Warner".

funny.

Right. He is a better quarterback than Warner, right now. I am pretty sure you can't challenge that statement. And, he did have a great year and his legend will be that year. When he got hurt he started to shy away and fumble too much. He was rattlesd, that can happen to any "legend" but he is coach that needs to make a decision on who is better right now for his team and he made the right decision.

Nobody said Martz was sane. :)


Todd

The correct answers:

- Kurt Warner in his prime was better than Marc Bulger is now.

- Kurt Warner right now is nowhere near what Marc Bulger is now.

- Kurt Warner aside, Marc Bulger is a far, far better QB than most people seem to give him credit for.

Render, there are 32 teams in this league. To use your example, Kitna could start on some of them, easy.

I think people are missing the point. Imagine if the coach for San Francisco said Steve Young was better than Joe Montana as he was still an active player in the league playing for Kansas City. It has to do with having respect for the player that helped put your franchise on the map. Why disrespect someone who won the one and only Super Bowl for the franchise? It is more a matter of disrespect by Martz than anything else. It has nothing to do with whether who is better at the current time. I am very surpised that people are defending the actions of Martz who seems to kick Warner under the bus anytime he gets a chance to. And I am not a Rams fan. I am a saddened Chargers fan who just took a licking.

Glad you caught up shorty =) I think I actually said this later on in the thread.