Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    HAHAHAHA Marrdro has lost his mind

  2. #12
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    that happened long ago, 'my friend'.

  3. #13
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    He's just trying to have a football discussion don't pick on him anymore :lol:

  4. #14
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Hot + Bruce = Proof that WR's can carry a QB.
    hmm... so Kurt Warner is no good theN?
    Even though I liked what Warner did with the Rams as well as the Cards, one has to then step back and ask what happened to him when he was on the Giants?

    In short, you give a QB cats like Fitz/Bolden or Bruce/Holt, and a QB can look very very very good.
    like you can hold that against him.

    9 games, 2000 yards and 6 TD's and an 86 QB rating, all with a terrible, terrible OL.

    He actually didn't do THAT bad considering. over the course of a full season, that would translate to roughly 3600 yards.

    Thats what happens when you put an old, immobile guy behind a terrible line.
    Could that rationale be applied to a young inexperience QB behind a terrible OL? :huh:

    Banish the thought.
    if it were an isolated, one time thing? Sure. I have a feeling the young inexperienced QB you refer to had many chances to succeed and didn't.

    Warner Has played great more times than not, and was even acceptable behind a terrible OL with Toomer as his primary weapon.
    I love the "He had many chances" line. You must think the Vikes were full up round and ready to go when it was gutted then to. LOL.

    As to Warner. He dissapeared when he left the Rams and was anything but acceptable.
    bullshit. As caine pointed out, every other QB we've signed, all of whom have been terrible have been able to out-perform TJ with the exact same team around them.

    But back to your Warner Logic. I guess taht means that Moss is crap right? Sinc ehe 'disappeared' in oakland. Or that Jerry Rice is nothing special, since he 'disappeared' in Seattle.

    Do receivers make a QB look better? Absolutely, you'd be stupid to think otherwise, but Warner is not solely a product of the system. The reason he couldn't make New York into contenders is becausee that whole team sucked. You can add a guy like Warner who can give players opportunities, but if they can't take advantage, it kinda limits what they can do.
    There were some flaws in Caines logic. For one he used stats for some QB's and records for others, picking and choosing what fit his argument.
    Your right about Warner though, a damn fine QB.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,061

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Hot + Bruce = Proof that WR's can carry a QB.
    hmm... so Kurt Warner is no good theN?
    Even though I liked what Warner did with the Rams as well as the Cards, one has to then step back and ask what happened to him when he was on the Giants?

    In short, you give a QB cats like Fitz/Bolden or Bruce/Holt, and a QB can look very very very good.
    like you can hold that against him.

    9 games, 2000 yards and 6 TD's and an 86 QB rating, all with a terrible, terrible OL.

    He actually didn't do THAT bad considering. over the course of a full season, that would translate to roughly 3600 yards.

    Thats what happens when you put an old, immobile guy behind a terrible line.
    Could that rationale be applied to a young inexperience QB behind a terrible OL? :huh:

    Banish the thought.
    if it were an isolated, one time thing? Sure. I have a feeling the young inexperienced QB you refer to had many chances to succeed and didn't.

    Warner Has played great more times than not, and was even acceptable behind a terrible OL with Toomer as his primary weapon.
    I love the "He had many chances" line. You must think the Vikes were full up round and ready to go when it was gutted then to. LOL.

    As to Warner. He dissapeared when he left the Rams and was anything but acceptable.
    bullshit. As caine pointed out, every other QB we've signed, all of whom have been terrible have been able to out-perform TJ with the exact same team around them.

    But back to your Warner Logic. I guess taht means that Moss is crap right? Sinc ehe 'disappeared' in oakland. Or that Jerry Rice is nothing special, since he 'disappeared' in Seattle.

    Do receivers make a QB look better? Absolutely, you'd be stupid to think otherwise, but Warner is not solely a product of the system. The reason he couldn't make New York into contenders is becausee that whole team sucked. You can add a guy like Warner who can give players opportunities, but if they can't take advantage, it kinda limits what they can do.
    And to add to that, that Giants O-line and receiving group were nowhere near as good as the Vikings while TJ was the QB.

    Take a look at Arizona's O-line last year. They were horrible. Yes, Warner had a good receiving group, but it's not like he was carried by an amazing team.

    Just watch the man play. See how quick that ball gets out of his hands. See the way he reads defenses and makes throws. Then put up some tape from TJ's games. It's really not close.
    "You can look pretty smart if you have a knack for planning ahead. That's Ted. The Packers are in good hands." - Ron Wolf


  6. #16
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    Rockmolder wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Hot + Bruce = Proof that WR's can carry a QB.
    hmm... so Kurt Warner is no good theN?
    Even though I liked what Warner did with the Rams as well as the Cards, one has to then step back and ask what happened to him when he was on the Giants?

    In short, you give a QB cats like Fitz/Bolden or Bruce/Holt, and a QB can look very very very good.
    like you can hold that against him.

    9 games, 2000 yards and 6 TD's and an 86 QB rating, all with a terrible, terrible OL.

    He actually didn't do THAT bad considering. over the course of a full season, that would translate to roughly 3600 yards.

    Thats what happens when you put an old, immobile guy behind a terrible line.
    Could that rationale be applied to a young inexperience QB behind a terrible OL? :huh:

    Banish the thought.
    if it were an isolated, one time thing? Sure. I have a feeling the young inexperienced QB you refer to had many chances to succeed and didn't.

    Warner Has played great more times than not, and was even acceptable behind a terrible OL with Toomer as his primary weapon.
    I love the "He had many chances" line. You must think the Vikes were full up round and ready to go when it was gutted then to. LOL.

    As to Warner. He dissapeared when he left the Rams and was anything but acceptable.
    bullshit. As caine pointed out, every other QB we've signed, all of whom have been terrible have been able to out-perform TJ with the exact same team around them.

    But back to your Warner Logic. I guess taht means that Moss is crap right? Sinc ehe 'disappeared' in oakland. Or that Jerry Rice is nothing special, since he 'disappeared' in Seattle.

    Do receivers make a QB look better? Absolutely, you'd be stupid to think otherwise, but Warner is not solely a product of the system. The reason he couldn't make New York into contenders is becausee that whole team sucked. You can add a guy like Warner who can give players opportunities, but if they can't take advantage, it kinda limits what they can do.
    And to add to that, that Giants O-line and receiving group were nowhere near as good as the Vikings while TJ was the QB.

    Take a look at Arizona's O-line last year. They were horrible. Yes, Warner had a good receiving group, but it's not like he was carried by an amazing team.

    Just watch the man play. See how quick that ball gets out of his hands. See the way he reads defenses and makes throws. Then put up some tape from TJ's games. It's really not close.
    good point, I'd take our receivers and OL 4 years ago over who the Giants had then. Vikings were a much better team than the Giants of that year, yet our QB couldn't put up much, granted he was essentially a rookie though.

  7. #17
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    Although I have no idea what we are arguing.. I looked up the rosters of Kurt Warners year in NY, and Jackson's first year

    I do have to say with my average NFL knowledge.. There is no way I would take the Vikes offense that year over the Giants

    Vikings offense- Chester Taylor, Travis Taylor, Williamson, Robinson.. And a O-line by commity with Rosenthal, Marcus Johnson, Hicks.. Ryan cook.. TEs Jermaine Wiggins on a decline and a blockin TE in Jimmy.. Etc

    Giants- Shockey, Tiki Barber, WRs a wash IMO Id give the nod to Hilliard and Toomer though over Robinson and Taylor.. The line basically a wash except they were more consistant.. I would take O'hara, Diehl, Snee, Whittle, Petigout over that line we had any day.. WE had Hutch, Birk and McKinnie who started all games.. But Birk clearly wasn't the same and mac still to this day has slow feet

    So to say Warner had a shitty offense is bunk.. Both had flaws.. But I really see no point in comparing the two.. 2 seperate years.. Warner is a future HOF'er.. Jackson was a rookie on a far worse offense IMO

  8. #18
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    Although I have no idea what we are arguing.. I looked up the rosters of Kurt Warners year in NY, and Jackson's first year

    I do have to say with my average NFL knowledge.. There is no way I would take the Vikes offense that year over the Giants

    Vikings offense- Chester Taylor, Travis Taylor, Williamson, Robinson.. And a O-line by commity with Rosenthal, Marcus Johnson, Hicks.. Ryan cook.. TEs Jermaine Wiggins on a decline and a blockin TE in Jimmy.. Etc

    Giants- Shockey, Tiki Barber, WRs a wash IMO Id give the nod to Hilliard and Toomer though over Robinson and Taylor.. The line basically a wash except they were more consistant.. I would take O'hara, Diehl, Snee, Whittle, Petigout over that line we had any day.. WE had Hutch, Birk and McKinnie who started all games.. But Birk clearly wasn't the same and mac still to this day has slow feet

    So to say Warner had a shitty offense is bunk.. Both had flaws.. But I really see no point in comparing the two.. 2 seperate years.. Warner is a future HOF'er.. Jackson was a rookie on a far worse offense IMO

  9. #19
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    Although I have no idea what we are arguing.. I looked up the rosters of Kurt Warners year in NY, and Jackson's first year

    I do have to say with my average NFL knowledge.. There is no way I would take the Vikes offense that year over the Giants

    Vikings offense- Chester Taylor, Travis Taylor, Williamson, Robinson.. And a O-line by commity with Rosenthal, Marcus Johnson, Hicks.. Ryan cook.. TEs Jermaine Wiggins on a decline and a blockin TE in Jimmy.. Etc

    Giants- Shockey, Tiki Barber, WRs a wash IMO Id give the nod to Hilliard and Toomer though over Robinson and Taylor.. The line basically a wash except they were more consistant.. I would take O'hara, Diehl, Snee, Whittle, Petigout over that line we had any day.. WE had Hutch, Birk and McKinnie who started all games.. But Birk clearly wasn't the same and mac still to this day has slow feet

    So to say Warner had a shitty offense is bunk.. Both had flaws.. But I really see no point in comparing the two.. 2 seperate years.. Warner is a future HOF'er.. Jackson was a rookie on a far worse offense IMO

  10. #20
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Issac Bruce to retire a Ram

    Although I have no idea what we are arguing.. I looked up the rosters of Kurt Warners year in NY, and Jackson's first year

    I do have to say with my average NFL knowledge.. There is no way I would take the Vikes offense that year over the Giants

    Vikings offense- Chester Taylor, Travis Taylor, Williamson, Robinson.. And a O-line by commity with Rosenthal, Marcus Johnson, Hicks.. Ryan cook.. TEs Jermaine Wiggins on a decline and a blockin TE in Jimmy.. Etc

    Giants- Shockey, Tiki Barber, WRs a wash IMO Id give the nod to Hilliard and Toomer though over Robinson and Taylor.. The line basically a wash except they were more consistant.. I would take O'hara, Diehl, Snee, Whittle, Petigout over that line we had any day.. WE had Hutch, Birk and McKinnie who started all games.. But Birk clearly wasn't the same and mac still to this day has slow feet

    So to say Warner had a shitty offense is bunk.. Both had flaws.. But I really see no point in comparing the two.. 2 seperate years.. Warner is a future HOF'er.. Jackson was a rookie on a far worse offense IMO

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. QB Bruce Gradkowski inked
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 07:01 AM
  2. Bruce signs with rams
    By vikeswin2005 in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-10-2006, 07:23 PM
  3. Issac Bruce cut by the Rams!!!
    By michaelmazid in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-08-2006, 02:50 AM
  4. isaac bruce?
    By olson_10 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 02:07 AM
  5. Bruce Smith
    By dan3ski in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2004, 07:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •