The 50 yard line
by Rams Nation's Rob Williams
Utterly obscured by the Warner/Bulger debate is the fact that both quarterbacks
have completed over 65% of their passes this season (Warner has completed over
70%). By comparison, Brad Johnson of the 9-2 Tampa Bay Buccaneers has completed
61% of his passes and Brett Favre of the 8-3 Packers has completed 63% of his
passes. Yet the Rams currently stand at 5-6, right on the edge of elimination
from the playoffs. So, what does that tell you?
That it's the rest of the Rams that really needs looking at, not Warner or
Bulger.
Sort out the defense, O line and special teams and this team would win with
Warner or Bulger. Even Jamie Martin completed over 60% of his passes. Turnovers
aside, all three Rams quarterbacks should have done enough to lead the Rams
to a winning season.
But the media loves a quarterback. What's more, the media do more than love
a quarterback controversy, they'd take it home to see mom and marry it if they
could.
A team wins - the quarterback gets the praise, the big money, the MVP award,
the trip to Disneyland and the soup commercials.
A team loses - the quarterback gets blamed for child poverty, the spread of
contagious diseases and the inabiity of the cast of Seinfeld to have a hit solo
sitcom since Jerry jumped ship.
Yet you can put a great quarterback behind an abysmal offensive line and he
won't make it to the third quarter of a game. A QB can put up 40 points in a
game and if the defense can't stop the opposition he can still end up being
on the losing side (see the Dan Fouts Chargers for evidence).
Mark Bulger is 5-0 as a starter this season, Kurt Warner is 0-5. The difference
couldn't be more polar. Ok, so Bulger faced easier defenses during his run than
Warner has, which partly reflects the fact that the O line hasn't been able
to protect Warner during his five losses, but the fact is that number 13 hasn't
been protected as well as Bulger this season. Is this partly because Mike Martz
doesn't leave in a back or a tight end to protect Warner as much as he did Bulger?
Partly. Martz has admitted as much himself.
Also, and this is the weird one, the Rams defense has been superb when Bulger
has started as quarterback, but has been awful when Warner has started. How
can that be? There can be no correlation between the two. A quarterback cannot
influence the play of his defensive teammates. Yet, during the Rams' six defeats
this season, the defense really hasn't played well. During Bulger's five starts,
and five wins, they were dynamite. Go figure.
Funnilly enough, the special teams have sucked in all 11 games this season,
regardless of who's been under centre, so they don't really come into the equation.
They're the only consistant aspect of the Rams' 2002 season. It'd make you laugh,
if it wasn't so painful to watch.
So what does all this mean? Is Warner cursed? He's lost his last six starts
at quarterback now, including the Superbowl. If he hadn't been injured would
the Rams now be 0-11? If Bulger started would the Rams be 11-0? No, neither
of these would've happened. And why?
This isn't a one man sport. It's a team game.
Kurt Warner did enough to beat the Redskins on Sunday. Why did the Rams lose?
Because the O line couldn't protect their quarterback, because the defense couldn't
stop an ordinary Redskins offense all game long (no sacks, no interceptions,
no forced fumbles, NO PUNTS), because the special teams keep allowing opposing
kickoff and punt returners more empty spaces to run into than exist in most
of Alaska.
Bulger or Warner? As long as they both keep completing 65% of their passes
it doesn't matter. The rest of the Rams have to do their jobs. As some cliche
merchant once remarked, there is no I in team.
Rob can be reached here