Is Bugler the answer? - Page 2

*HornIt* · #16 (**permalink**) -04-01-2008

No, he's not.

He's physically limited. Not a strong leader. Injury prone.

But he has to be the answer for at least the next couple seasons and they can win with him as long as they build the offense around Jackson and give him the perfect protection and outstanding WR's he needs.

*Milan* · #17 (**permalink**) -04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by 39thebeast

what this is crazy this even coming up. Are you telling me a guy who gets hit 30-50 times a year is fragile. He stayed healthy last year and he was sacked 40+ times. It just caught up to him getting hit another 40 times. Imagine how Manning or Brady would be getting sacked 40 times.

Another thing what is wrong with a good pocket passer. Look at all the top QB's in the league they are all pocket passers . If Bullger the answer

of course he is

this is crazy this is coming up

It's a lot more than just 40 times, he got sacked 37...while taking a hit probably every 1 in 4 dropbacks...

I want him back behind a competent OL.

**Nick** · #18 (**permalink**) -04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris58

I like Marc Bulger. He's smart, accurate arm, and has a steady temperament. But I ask the ClanRam forum is he capable of leading the Rams to the promise land in 2008 and beyond?

With a capable and cohesive line in front of him, I think Bulger is capable of leading this team into February, yes.

*sprtsmac* · #19 (**permalink**) -04-01-2008

[quote=Fargo Ram Fan;206300] and doesnt seem to inspire others around him by being a very vocal or animated/outgoing type leader. He has led ONE fourth quarter comeback in his CAREER that I can recall (vs Seattle). QUOTE]

I would say it was his vocal leadership that got the team to 8-8 in 2006. And as far as comebacks go; I'm sure he would have more than 1 if the defense held up to their end of the deal. He would have 3 alone against Seattle if it wasn't for the defense.

#20 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Maybe not to 2+2.. but bulger is the best quarterback that we have had in a long time.. (Warner).. plus who else would we find to replace Him.. Besides the Future Hall of Famer Brock Berlin?

*MoonJoe* · #21 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

He also had that come back with Houston 2 years ago as well. Yes he is a good quarterback when he is protected. Is he Favre, no. But who is besides Favre. Other than that, most "great" quaterbacks of this era just have good O lines.

*ramsbruce* · #22 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonJoe

He also had that come back with Houston 2 years ago as well. Yes he is a good quarterback when he is protected. Is he Favre, no. But who is besides Favre. Other than that, most "great" quaterbacks of this era just have good O lines.

Ummm the Houston comeback was with Fitzpatrick, but anyways of course Bulger has had comeback games. With a good O line he is one of the better QBs in the league.

*bigredman* · #23 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Excuse me, but was there a question in the first place? Bulger is our starting QB. Deserves to be, and is universally considered to be one of the most under-appreciated talents at QB throughout the football world. Do we need to draft or obtain a QB of the future? YES. Don't confuse the two.

#24 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

is that you in the avatar BRM?? is it real??

*bigredman* · #25 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Yes that is. That's the same helmet I wore in 1979 in training camp.

#26 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

wow.. you were a ram..... awesome..

*ramsanddodgers* · #27 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHAT-MONEY

is that you in the avatar BRM?? is it real??

Yes, Phat, that is BRM in his avatar. He was in Rams' training camp in what, BRM, 1979? He was there just long enough to make the Rams tough enough to get to our first Super Bowl by forcing his then teammates to realize what it meant to fight for a job.

#28 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

did he make it out of training camp.. still thats awesome.. congrats almost 30 years later..

*MoonJoe* · #29 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Damn, didn't Bulger even start that game? I can't remember now....oh well. I was wrong. Regardless he had more than one come back. And If I not mistaken, in the old days, we were usually ahead a lot more and it wasn't a factor. It seems now the pattern is to start decent and then tank, and I can't fault Bulger for that.

Oh and least I know it was the French who bombed Pearl Harbor for crying out loud!

*ramsbruce* · #30 (**permalink**) -05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonJoe

Damn, didn't Bulger even start that game? I can't remember now....oh well. I was wrong. Regardless he had more than one come back. And If I not mistaken, in the old days, we were usually ahead a lot more and it wasn't a factor. It seems now the pattern is to start decent and then tank, and I can't fault Bulger for that.

Oh and least I know it was the French who bombed Pearl Harbor for crying out loud!

Yes I believe Bulger started that game, but Fitz lead the comeback. The the next week Fitz played pretty bad from what I remember when he played the a full game. Like you said though regardless Bulger has lead comebacks. Good point about us having the lead more often a few years back, you can't have a comeback if you are winning.