Was Marc Bulger a good QB?

[Juice]

I liked the way Bulger just walked off the field after a TD pass. I remember wanting him to go to an AFC team and doing pretty well. I think he was a good QB.

That being said, can you imagine Marino in his prime leading the GSOT. Jesus.

 

[OregonRamsFan]

Meh. Both he and Warner were products of the system. Trent Green and Jamie Martin could have done the same until the league caught on. It was a revolutionary offense, and we all saw what happened to those two QBs when they had no surrounding talent.

Good QBs? Sure. Big deal though. So were Archie Manning, Jeff George, Jake Plummer, Rich Gannon, Tim Couch, Andrew Luck, and so on. If you don’t land in the right situation, you’re fucked. Or you can be a meh QB and hit jackpot. Jim McMahon, Trent Dilfer, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Nick Foles, etc.

The only truly GREAT QBs are Dan Marino, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana. The rest can be put in different tiers between very good to meh. Burger and Warner were good in small windows. Those other 3 were always great. Know why? Because their teams kept the same systems - tailored TO them - for basically their whole careers.
Change my mind.

Well Warner did almost win another Super Bowl with Arizona. So, yes I think Warner was indeed special.

 

[kmramsfan]

I still have PTSD from the PD days on this subject.

Having watched Bulger play in person a couple times plus watching him on TV.... I couldn't stand the guy. He threw one of the most beautiful long balls when he had a perfect pocket. He was extremely hit and miss on short and intermediate passes and at times couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. He also defined the fetal position.

I remember watching him up in Seattle to start the season. The defense was kicking shecocks ass and the team was pumped. Bulger had open opportunity after open opportunity and was missing receivers by feet. You could see the team physically and emotionally melt.

Everett got credit for the infamous phantom sack but Bulger perfected it. And sorry... He had an O-line and weapons galore in his best year by wins and still threw as many INTs as TDs.

Lots of guys can throw a pretty pass. Bulger never had the rest of the tools to make him anything more than a perfect condition QB.

He always saw things a flash too late. A 1/2 second earlier, and the ball gets there on time.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

He was ok i suppose.

He wasn't 1/100th the qb Kurt was.

To say Kurt wasn't elite is laughable.

.

 

[PARAM]

Nobody could stand in there like Kurt. That was a huge difference between the 2, among others. The loss of Az meant having 3 very good contributors at WR instead of 4. Proehl moved to 3rd and equaled Az's production, but no one could maintain that 4th WR spot after Az left. But yeah we can agree that basically after each loss of player we mentioned, Bulger became that much more disarmed in terms of weapons and protection.

Az left after 2001 along with his 128-1785 15 TDs and 78 first downs from 99-01. He was special. Proehl was a good possession guy but he was gone the following year. Yo Murphy and Dane Looker < Az and Proehl. And by 2003, Marshall was a shadow of himself. Bulger didn't have near the weapons we enjoyed from 99-01. Was he as good as Warner? No. But he could have been much better than he was with the same crew #13 had. But Warner wasn't Warner in 02 or 03 or 04 in NY for that matter. Once he put the glove on in Arizona, he was back.

 

[SWAdude]

I thought Marc Bulger was a great QB who I feared would get injured every game. If not killed.

That man took a beating with us. I found it frightening.

It is true that when Martz was getting it right QB's worked well in his system.

I really liked Bulger's playing.

 

[-X-]

Well Warner did almost win another Super Bowl with Arizona. So, yes I think Warner was indeed special.

And I almost nailed Jessica Alba.

Just needed to get her to know I was alive.
So close.

 

[RhodyRams]

Ahhh the NEWBD has reared its ugly head

 

[dieterbrock]

The problem i see when talking about Bulger, is that its hard to seperate evaluating him as a qb without carrying resentment towards him replacing Warner. On his own, I enjoyed the heck out of him when he came in to start against the undefeated Raiders, and the Rams sitting at 0-5. 4 TD's later and a rout of the Black and Silver, and we were off and running. I think it was a record that the Rams got back to 5-5 after losing the first 5 games. And then he got hurt, and Warner should have never been brought back out. I know the guy was a competitor, but he wasnt fit to play, and he was awful. I was at the season opener against the Giants, and it was sheer embarrassing.
To no fault of Bulger's, it was hard for me to fully support him. Kurt was amazing and seeing him replaced just felt like the GSOT was a memory.
That's just me though, I had a tough time, but eventually I grew to like Bulger. He was no Kurt, he wasnt even Trent Green. But he had his moments for sure. Good QB? I think so
In my lifetime though, Marino and Montana are head and shoulders above the rest. Marino is the best passer, period. Montana did a whole lot with not the best supporting cast. Dwight Clark was a decent WR, but similar to Lynn Swann, highly over rated career wise due to a great catch (that was a mistake). Montana won 2 SB's before Jerry Rice came to the team. Steve Young on the other hand, overrated because of what he walked in to.

 

[Ellard80]

Bulger vs Warner debates on the St Loo Post Dispatch board... good times

yes yes i was a part of those back in the day!

 

[Ellard80]

Bulger was okay... he threw a nice spiral...

He wasn't very consistent however, and had a bad line. Andrew Whitworth has more mobility.

 

[Pancake]

I know it seems that way, but let me explain. First, I have nothing against Warner or Bulger. I would marry Warner if I wasn't already spoken for, or if he was up for it. I don't mind Bulger either. I've long since gotten over my feelings about him supplanting Warner. He was a decent QB too. But here's the rub. One was undrafted, and the other a sixth rounder. It was the system & talent around them that made them, and the team's inability to keep that system & talent going (coach/GM both culpable) that ruined them. As such, neither were able to elevate themselves to the very top tier of QBs. Maybe they could have, maybe they couldn't have, but we'll never know. On the basis of pure talent, Bulger was good, Warner was very good, but neither were elite. IMO, of course.

I'm surprised you didn't put John Elway up there with Marino, Brady and Montana. Speaking of Brady. You should take some points away from him just for knowing he is/was a cheater. He's a system Qb too. The cheater system.

 

[JonRam99]

in before da lock

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I know it seems that way, but let me explain. First, I have nothing against Warner or Bulger. I would marry Warner if I wasn't already spoken for, or if he was up for it. I don't mind Bulger either. I've long since gotten over my feelings about him supplanting Warner. He was a decent QB too. But here's the rub. One was undrafted, and the other a sixth rounder. It was the system & talent around them that made them, and the team's inability to keep that system & talent going (coach/GM both culpable) that ruined them. As such, neither were able to elevate themselves to the very top tier of QBs. Maybe they could have, maybe they couldn't have, but we'll never know. On the basis of pure talent, Bulger was good, Warner was very good, but neither were elite. IMO, of course.

But you said Marino, Montana, and Brady had the luxury of playing their entire career in systems tailor made for them. Warner excelled in three different systems. Bulger, if he had started and finished his entire career in a system tailor made for him then maybe he's more highly regarded.

I think there needs to be a different measure. I don't list Marino as one of the greats because he never elevated his team enough to reach a Superbowl. Favre? Too many it's for my liking. Montana, I'd say yes just based on hos ability to will his teams to big game wins. That's what elite QBs have. They can put their team on their back. Very few could do that.

 

[-X-]

But you said Marino, Montana, and Brady had the luxury of playing their entire career in systems tailor made for them. Warner excelled in three different systems. Bulger, if he had started and finished his entire career in a system tailor made for him then maybe he's more highly regarded.

That’s exactly what I intimated.

 

[Karate61]

I thought Bulger was a great qb. He wasn't Warner, but man he threw some deadly accurate passes!

 

[-X-]

I don't list Marino as one of the greats because he never elevated his team enough to reach a Superbowl.

Well, (a) “elevating a team” isn’t a real thing. And (b) he did reach a Super Bowl. I watched it. But that aside, do you think Eli Manning, from a pure talent perspective, is better than Dan Marino? I mean, he must be, right? He has two rings and Marino has zero.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Well, (a) “elevating a team” isn’t a real thing. And (b) he did reach a Super Bowl. I watched it. But that aside, do you think Eli Manning, from a pure talent perspective, is better than Dan Marino? I mean, he must be, right? He has two rings and Marino has zero.

Yes. The cerebral gifts count as much as the physical ones, sometimes more.

 

[André]

Well okay, but the thread is actually *about* Bulger.

Goff aside, Marino is ABSOLUTELY in the class of Brady and Montana. Granted he never got a ring, but Flacco did. Does that, by extension, mean Flacco is better than Marino? I'm talking about pure ability, and there are very few QBs in history who can match his release time, ability to read the field, and arm strength.

If we're also looking at great QBs without a ring, I really think we should be adding Dan Fouts to this list ...

 

[nighttrain]

Jim Kelly?