Should bulger or warner start?

jbugs · November 25, 2002 11:36AM

warner hasnt one a game, and has looked pretty pathetic so far this season, bulger is undefeated. i think bulger should get the start next week, he is their only hope this season for the playoffs!

joestalin · November 25, 2002 11:37AM

who cares the rams are done. martz is an idiot!

Kevin

Xtrainningscards · November 25, 2002 11:43AM

I'd like to see Bulger back in, if he is healthy but not sure he is...Faulk is who the Rams are really missing, they would have won yesterday if they had him in there...They aren't done yet 9ers are losing and they will be 2 back, and they still have to play them once.

Go Rams!!!!

Randy

KBryant1 · November 25, 2002 12:08PM

Bulger

zimmy3 · November 25, 2002 1:14PM

Bulger fo sho. Warner has proved that any moron can run this offense. All you need is Marshall Faulk. Without him Warner and Bulger are worthless.

ahares · November 25, 2002 1:17PM

I think Bulger should play...but not this week..lol...i'll take Warner against the Eagles!!

KingCobra · November 25, 2002 1:33PM

Are you guys nuts? What more does Warner need to do to survive a few tough games? If Koy Detmer goes 5-0, should McNabb be benched?

heavyd5424 · November 25, 2002 1:38PM

warner no questions= he played a very good game yesterday- look at bulger- he didnt play unreal w/out faulk but they won because they played a weaker opp. on the defensive side of the ball

warner is a top 3 qb in the league and he'll prove that to u all again

zimmy3 · November 25, 2002 1:40PM

Warner 0-6, Bulger 5-0. What else is there to say? When Martz decided at the beggining of the season to give the ball to Warner more, he choked. Then when Bulger came in they went back to Faulk and BAM, Bulger is a "star" all of a sudden. Yes he did win one game w/o faulk, but that was against the horrid bears, and they barely won. It's not a coincidence

KingCobra · November 25, 2002 1:45PM

You guys act like Warner has only played six games in his career. Cut the guy some slack, if you guys ran the Packers you'd have benched Favre after the last two games.

zimmy3 · November 25, 2002 2:18PM

LOL King, what a stupid argument. Favre 8-3 this season. Warner is 0-6. And Favre is an established top QB. Warner is an established fraud QB

zimmy3 · November 25, 2002 2:22PM

Please tell me why Warner is a top 3 QB. How do you explain the Rams being like undefeated when Faulk has a certain number of carries? How do you explain that when they decided to pass more this season and get away from faulk somewhat they lose the first 5 games with warner, then when an unknown backup comes in and they start to give it to faulk more this kid is putting up a +120 passer rating and 300+ yards a game? Its OBVIOUS who the star is, it is FAULK. Stop denying it. QBs like Favre and McNabb have proven they can win w/o the best RBs or WRs, and the Rams have proven that any QB can run their monster offense. Stop with the Warner is a top 3 qb junk, this season just proved what he is, a subpar QB who got lucky to be in a great offense

jbugs · November 25, 2002 9:19PM

warner played like crap on sunday! what are you talking about?? if deter won 5 games no he shouldnt start, because mcnabb is the one that led them this far. Warner hasnt wona damn game he's played this year. If he was 4-2 or 5-1 or something then ya, Id give it to warner, but not when he's 0-6.

KingCobra · November 25, 2002 9:44PM

zimmy - " And Favre is an established top QB. Warner is an established fraud QB"

Warner, in 4 years, has been to the same number of Super Bowls as Favre.

heavyd5424 · November 25, 2002 9:54PM

warner played bad?? are u slow lol. he was 15 for his first 15 passes. he threw for 300 yds and 2 touchdowns. made one mistake on an int, which most qbs throw 1 per game now. how is that bad??

c0LLect0r · November 25, 2002 10:03PM

Bulger. No need to explain....

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 2:21AM

KingCobra, READ THE REST OF MY POSTS. It says WHY Warner is a fraud QB.

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 2:24AM

Who cares about SBs? Warner does NOT make that team. How blind are you? Is it coincidence that when Faulk gets a certain # of carries they win? NO! Faulk opens up the defense allowing whatever QB is back there to have open receivers, not to mention those receivers they got are above average. Stop denying it, everyone knows it now. All the facts are there

pacmanssportscards · November 26, 2002 2:24AM

Bulger all the way.

KingCobra · November 26, 2002 2:36AM

zimmy, all I can say is you of all people should know the value of continuity at QB. You don't bench a two-time MVP over a few bad games, if you did Favre would get benched everytime the Pack traveled to Minnesota. Also, Warner was hurt when the season started, when he played against the Skins he had a great game even without Faulk. Finally, he is 0-5 this year. not 06, Jamie Martin started one of the losses.

I can't believe what a bunch of front-runners you guys are, if Lamar Gordon runs of four straight 150-yard games should Faulk be forgotten too? It's absurd.

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 2:54AM

Point one: Warner did not deserve to be a two time MVP. It is clear who the MVP was, and it was Faulk. The voters are probably kicking themselves now. Point Two: NO ONE was saying Warner should be benched after one or two games, jees. He is 0-6 this season, does that mean nothing? (and Jamie did NOT start a game this year) Also, Favre is one of the best QBs of all time, Warner is nowhere close to that. You are one of those stat hounds though "Oh, look at the yards he threw for, he must be the best that ever played the game." You have to look at who and what is around him and how they get it done, and its evident that how they get it done is by Faulk, not Warner. And don't give this BS about Warner being hurt at the beggining of the season, just an excuse as to why he played bad. "Oh, his finger must not have healed during the offseason, that must be the problem." The FACTS are there, I'm sorry to say. I don't hate any QBs in this league, if they are good I give them their due. Favre, McNabb, Garcia, Bledsoe, Brady, Gannon, Vick, etc etc. Warner is NOT a top QB. Hes not even in the top 10. And you still haven't told me why he is so great. You have not been able to refute the facts when Faulk gets the carries they win and when they decide to pass more they lose, as evidenced by Warner and Bulger. You can't deny the facts, there is no way. The only way you can try is by saying "Warner has two MVPs and his team went to two SBs." Hey, does that mean Trent Dilfer is one of the best QBs in the league? He went to one SB and won it, that must automatically mean he is great!

pacmanssportscards · November 26, 2002 2:56AM

Way to go zimmy! That is too frizzin long to read but I'm sure it's good.

KingCobra · November 26, 2002 2:58AM

OK then, let's boil it down to this then: If all that matters for the Rams is Faulk, and any schmoe can succeed at QB, why not err on the side of caution and stick in the stiff with two MVP awards thousands of passing yards over the stiff with 5 career wins? Regardless of what you think of Bulger, what more could Warner have done in his first few years in the league to convince you that he's a god QB? What more do you want from the guy?

Why is it that 5 games by Bulger convince you, but 3 great years by Warner do not?

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 4:07AM

King, the point I was making is that EITHER of them could start and win. Problem is that Martz, being a bonehead, will give the ball to Warner more if he starts and take the ball away from faulk while if he starts Bulger he will give the ball more to faulk. It doesn't matter who starts if Martz would just give the ball to faulk. Warner or Bulger is going to win then. I am saying start Bulger right now because Martz will then give it to Faulk.

jbugs · November 26, 2002 5:48AM

he was 15-15 right away, on short little dump offs. what was he after that? 12-25?? something pretty close to that, anybody can dump the ball off and throw for 15-15, but once he actually had to throw down field and with accuracy he sucked.

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 6:05AM

Good point JBugs, and why wasn't he completing it downfield like he usually does? Cause he didn't have Marshall Faulk (or if faulk did play a healthy marshall faulk) to open up the defense

KingCobra · November 26, 2002 8:19AM

(and Jamie did NOT start a game this year)

Martin did start and lose one of those games. I'd put money on it.

I think we can all agree that Faulk is their best player and the key to their offense, but Warner has the best passer rating...ever. Better than Steve Young, Aikman, etc. That isn't a fluke, or the product of a system.

TrFstPtch · November 26, 2002 8:26AM

Bulger...the idea is to win

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 8:58AM

LOL, ok whatever. Its just too hard to accept the facts I see. No point in arguing anymore, some people have such rosecolored glasses on you just can't change their mind

KingCobra · November 26, 2002 9:16AM

I haven't seen any legitamite facts yet to tell me why you abandon a two time MVP and SB QB for a five-game wonder.

zimmy3 · November 26, 2002 9:56AM

King, you are soooooooo stupid. Have you read all my posts on the subject? Check out my post posted on Tuesday November 26, 2002 2:07 PM. I never said bench warner cause Bulger is better, I said bench warner because Martz would just keep taking it away from faulk. Either of them could start and win as long as they give it to faulk. BTW: Remember when Warner was a 5 game wonder? You should talk about 5 game wonders cause at one point warner was that too. There is no wonder about it anymore. The Rams are not grooming the best QBs anyone has ever seen and they came out of nowhere, its all because of faulk and the receivers.

KingCobra · November 26, 2002 10:00AM

If it's all because of Faulk and the recievers, why was Jamie Martin so inept? It shows you have no knowledge of football whatsoever when you attribute all of QB's success to his RB and WR's...yes it matters, and yes it helps, but that's not all their is to it.

Should bulger or warner start?

Comments