Facts on Bulger-----enough said.....

by dmksurgical on Sep 22, 2009 3:54 AM CDT Comment 17 comments

He’s completing only 50 percent of his passes, has thrown for just one touchdown, and his passer rating is a mediocre 69.5. Plus, his team is 0-2 and his offense has produced a league-low seven points. Enough said, absolutely ridiculous. Why is it that we continue to make excuses for mediocrity. Read the blogs, read the newspaper and what we find is excuse after excuse. Marc Bulger cannot lead this team to a playoff birth much less a Superbowl.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

His stats do suck

but you need to take your blinders off and use your peripheral vision. Reality is not in BLACK AND WHITE. If you look solely to stats then yeah, you will be disappointed. Fortunately for us there is more too it than that. There are reasons for bad stats. Try and look to the root of the problem. Try to look beyond just a box score because this is reality not fantasy football, pal.
Revert back to the post :
Putting things in Perspective Part 1.
It should be able to give you an idea as to what is going on with this guy, considering you are ready to lynch him after two games of the season when we are stuck with him for 16.

by CaliRamMan on Sep 22, 2009 12:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Those facts are Rams offensive facts (games won is a team number)

You cannot treat passer ratings, number of TD passes, games won as numbers that relate only to the QB. That does not make sense. You might have a point if you were criticizing MB for not leading the offense and keeping everyone focused but you are not even doing that. Fumbles and dropped passes go into your numbers but there is not much that any QB can do about those other than practicing more with the team and trying to help others eliminate those mistakes. Give MB a break. He deserved it.

by Summer of 99 on Sep 22, 2009 12:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think both sdes have dug their heels in at this point with Bulger...

Those that think he sucks (raises hand) and those that think he doesn’t (puts hand down). I don’t think either is going to convince the other at this point.

But haters and apologists are going have to deal with him being the QB until he either gets hurt (likely) or his play forces Spags to move to Boller. But before we grab the pitchforks and torches to storm Rams Pak calling for Boller – remember how well the Bulger benching went over with the team last year. Granted – it was Linehan, but still.

I think Bulger will get hurt or benched and ultimately put an end to his time here in StL by the end of the season. And thats a good thing…

Free Brandon Wood!

by gorams77 on Sep 22, 2009 1:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Those that think Bulger sux,

if Avery would have caught the ball and made a touchdown to win the game [instead of cough-cough] would you still be complaining? I think not.

You can complain all you want, really, but IMO there are a few ‘issues’ on offense that contribute to less than stellar numbers for Bulger; namely not enough running plays to make the passing play effective. Less than spectacular play calling is another area of improvement. Point being the whole offense is still taking baby steps so all areas need improving [well, except for Jackson of course!]. You can only learn as fast as the ‘slowest’ player…

by RamsFan1979 on Sep 22, 2009 4:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bulger will be fine

The offense is not really in motion and a new system and young receivers who don’t know the ins and outs is really slowing his production. Once everything syncs Bulger is extremely accurate and a good passing quarterback. He isn’t the most agile and eluding player but give him decent protection and he’ll deliver a great pass if his receivers are somewhat open. And look on the bright side he hasn’t thrown any interceptions. But you guys are right i think he will get injured soon because he is getting hit hard. Try to keep your heads up rams fans!

by keeperskillz24 on Sep 22, 2009 8:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I haven't changed my mind - Bulger still suckles

Please blame everybody else, and sure Avery dropped and fumbled a critical pass, but the team has NO faith in Bulger. Even with all the errors, Bulger had a chance to get us in range for a game winning FG on the last possession. But, we went 4 and out. Those are the type of situations where a Joe Montana, Tom Brady or John Elway type gets you a last shot at winning. Bulger will be a backup QB somewhere else next year after having cleaned the Rams out of millions of $$$ for winning 5 of the last 34 games. He, Adam Carriker and Drew Bennett can laugh all the way to the bank.

by edpjr on Sep 22, 2009 8:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You didn't mention

a Dan Marino… but maybe because he didn’t win that much since his receivers were bunk. The thing his receivers were best at was ingraining their names into your mind like Mark “Super” Duper…

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Sep 22, 2009 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm going to try and civilally lock horns with you again

“the team has NO faith in bulger”

how do you know that? are in the locker room with spags and everyone else on a daily basis? it’s really hard to make a statement like that just by being an outsider.

“bulger had a chance to get us in range for a game winning FG on the last possession….that’s where JM, TB, JE gets you a last shot at winning”

while it is very true bulger could have handled that better, it’s quite a stretch to say it’s completely his fault. mcmichael dropped a pass on first down and the playcalling was crap for downs 2-4. you also have to take into consideration the fact that there was (and correct me if i’m wrong) less than two minutes in the game, the rams had no timeouts, and were pinned at their own 4. you can’t exactly just run a normal 2 minute drill from there, the situation was a bit desperate. and saying “that’s where Montana, Brady, and Elway get you a win.” well of course that’s true, those are three HOF QBs. i think we can both agree bulger isn’t near that class, so you can’t expect the same out of him.

“bulger will be a backup QB somewhere else next year”

why it may be true he will end up somewhere else, it won’t be as a backup QB. i can probably name 7-10 teams that bulger would be starting for right now if he was on their team.

“he, adam carriker, and drew bennett can laugh all the way to the bank”

bulger: he’s been a victim of a piss poor system under piss poor management. yes, the contract SUCKS, but it’s not because he’s not trying. the entire team sucks, not just bulger. you need to reserve judgment on carriker for the time being. the third year is usually a good indicator year for a first round pick, and obviously he’s out for the year. so give carriker some slack for now, and wait for next year. you are however correct about drew bennett, he was worthless.

nfltouchdown.com

find me under the fan voices section for the st. louis rams

by stlcardinalsfang on Sep 23, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.

by BruinHalo on Sep 24, 2009 2:59 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

these aren’t even good statistics to be using.

"F@*& Lidge and the horse he rode in on!"

-Cards Fan in Chitown, via text message shortly after the VEB Get Together Day.

by Tackle Box on Sep 24, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

this

I generally defer to Van in statistical matters, but the reality is that statistics in the NFL measure individual performances where the effects of 10 other people on the field don’t have a part in the formula. They can be used as part of an argument or to bolster understanding, but not to create it.

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Sep 25, 2009 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I'm following you.

But I know there’s no way you’re advocating using QB rating, record, and points scored as a way to measure Bulger’s individual performance while not taking into account the other players influence, right?

Actually, now that I’m re-re-reading your comment, you’re explaination is starting to become more clear, I think. I think you’re saying something like “Passing Yards” is attributed to Marc Bulger which is unfair (not totally but to a degree) because it’s obviously dependant on the reciever not only catching the ball, but also running the correct route as well as the blocking scheme working as well as other factors.

And you’re right. Van is by far the main stat guy here. I’m nothing but a padawan when it comes to the higher levels of football stats.

"F@*& Lidge and the horse he rode in on!"

-Cards Fan in Chitown, via text message shortly after the VEB Get Together Day.

by Tackle Box on Sep 25, 2009 7:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying football stats are in their infancy

  Football is incredibly difficult to quantify because so many factors influence every play and those factors are determined by the 22 people on the field.
  Consider a completion in practice when there are no defenders around. If Laurent Robinson and Marc Bulger are practicing at full NFL speed, 100% effort, etc., and Laurent Robinson runs a 5-yard out, the only factors that influence a completion from beginning to end are Jason Brown’s snap, Marc Bulger receiving the snap, dropping back, and making the throw, and Robinson running his route and then making the catch. Throw a defense out there and the factors that influence that play increase by, what, 100 or so? To try and reduce those 100 factors into a single number is so difficult because at some point you have to ignore everything else on the field. And it’s not really ignore, but to take it for granted.
  Let’s say the Rams run the same pass play twice. On one play, it’s a 15 yard catch by Donnie Avery; on the other, Bulger gets sacked. Statisically, the sack takes away a completion by Bulger (a negative on him), a reception by Avery (a negative on him), negative rushing yards by Bulger (a negative on him), negative passing yards by the Rams (a negative on the team’s passing stats), and all the second and third order effects (i.e. the effect it has on the drive, on the next play call, etc.). All those negative effects are applied even though Bulger and Avery may have done the EXACT same thing.
  Football is so complex in every play that it’s very difficult to come up with ways to explain efficiency or gauge success with the traditional stats applied to performance.

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Sep 25, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

After reading it a couple of times

that’s where I thought you were going. At first, I thought you were defending using stats like score and win-loss to evaluate a QB but I realized you didn’t and I was just not interpreting it correctly.

And yeah, while completions and whatnot are still tough to use to evaluate a QB (or WR or whatever), as poor as they are, I’d still use them over W-L and points…heh.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Sep 25, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs