nice catch by bennett

*general counsel* · #1 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

i have to admit that the ball bennett failed to catch in the end zone hit him in a bad spot. Right in the hands! Bulger couldnt have thrown that ball any better if he was standing two feet away from him.

I cant believe someone could cut bruce assuming bruce takes a major paycut. I appreciate that they arent going to pay bruce the big roster bonus and i am willing to bet big money that bruce will take a material cut. I am not giving up hope on bennett, he was injured much of the year and he never got any timing with bulger. that being said, bruce is still very productive and an institution.

We need our best team on the field. The money committed to bennett is a reality, but its not an excuse to cut a player as productive as bruce. The idea of a speed guy to stretch the field is nice, but if we dont get vastly improved offensive line play, i dont care if we sign carl lewis, bulger wont have time to get it down the field.

You cant win at ANY level without an offensive line and if anyone ever doubted that, just watch the rams season and see if you can do so without throwing up.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*Ram Dragoon* · #2 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

Oh the irony of it, the Cards line isn't much better then the Rams line and what was the score today?

*Mooselini* · #3 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

youre right, today wasnt a great day. but you know, it was (in a good way for today's loss) because we have second pick in the draft.

that aside, our star receivers, bruce, holt and bennett are all good. during off season training, we need to practice the long ball. bennett is an okay receiver.

bruce and holt are great, probowl status receivers. we just need to protect bulger to make the receivers we have live up to their names.

*RealRam* · #4 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooselini

You're right, today wasn't a great day. But you know, it was (in a good way for today's loss) because we have second pick in the draft.

That aside, our star receivers, Bruce, Holt and Bennett are all good. During off season training, we need to practice the long ball. Bennett is an okay receiver.

Bruce and Holt are great, probowl status receivers. We just need to protect Bulger to make the receivers, we have live up to their names.

Well, I didn't see the game today, much less that drop in the end zone (ouch again). Being the Bennett probably won't go anywhere, you're right Moose, we're going to have to practice the long ball. A LOT.

I'm also hoping a stronger, healthier OL will allow for a more secure passing game and/or patterns that will help Bennett move from 'good' to 'better'.

*prof22693* · #5 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ram Dragoon

Oh the irony of it, the Cards line isn't much better than the Rams line and what was the score today?

Well, Fitz and Boldin are no burners; they are slower than Bruce and Holt but Boldin and Fitz are great physical players, Holt and Bruce are the best route runners, that's how we get them the ball when they're going vertical. I agree with some other posts that in the off-season we need to practice the long ball.

EDIT: I also, like general counsel, have not given up on Bennett.

*tomahawk247* · #6 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

the disappointing thing for me is the fact we could have kept Curtis for the same money we paid to Bennett. Curtis had over 1000 yards receiving, 6 TDs and also was on the ball to recover two fumbles in the endzone for a further two TDs.

*ramsbruce* · #7 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomahawk247

the disappointing thing for me is the fact we could have kept Curtis for the same money we paid to Bennett. Curtis had over 1000 yards receiving, 6 TDs and also was on the ball to recover two fumbles in the endzone for a further two TDs.

I keep reading this stuff but how do you know for a "fact" we could have kept Curtis? You don't know, there was talk that Curtis didn't want to be a #3 and that's what he would have been here so he took his opportunity in Philly where they have no WRs.

Curtis wouldn't have turned around our dismal season, he wouldn't have even made a dent. He most likely doesn't recover any fumbles for TDs if he was here. He also got 3 of those TDs in one game against the pathetic Lions defense who decided to not show up and let Philly put 56 points on them. So 3 TD receptions in the other 15 games isn't that great.

Look I like Curtis, but saying "we could have kept him" isn't necessarily true. What about what Curtis wanted, a #1 or #2 wr spot. That's something he most likely wasn't going to get here, barring injury.

*tomahawk247* · #8 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

actually i thought it was common knowledge that Curtis wanted to come back, and that he was so disappointed that his agent failed to make a deal similar to Bennett's that he fired his agent and got a new one.

*chiguy* · #9 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

I do know this -- we have an obvious need for a speed receiver and Curtis is a speed receiver. Bennett, meanwhile, was this season's Chris Claiborne.

*ramsbruce* · #10 (**permalink**) -31-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomahawk247

actually i thought it was common knowledge that Curtis wanted to come back, and that he was so disappointed that his agent failed to make a deal similar to Bennett's that he fired his agent and got a new one.

As far as I remember Curtis didn't even have an agent for a while and then he hired one later on, then he fired him and hired someone else. I also remember talk of Curtis not wanting to be the #3 here. So I don't think you can just say if we had offered him Bennett's contract he would have stayed and it's all the Rams fault he's gone. I think it was about more than money for Curtis, it was about playing time and Curtis knew that we weren't going to use 3 wideouts as much so that meant even less playing time for him, barring injury. Bennett knew coming in he was going to be the #3 and he was ok with that.