I predict St. Louis Rams go "Quarterback" at #2 overall* (*See Disclaimers Within)

[Nick]

wow.....that was a long response. Somebody needs to explain to this technologically challenged board member how to use the multi-quote system - how about you Nick, You obviously have it down to a science

I did at the beginning of my last response, I thought.

I don't know there exact ages - my guess would be Steven Jackson is around 26 years old and Bulger closer to 33 years old

You're close - Bulger turns 32 next April, Jackson will turn 26 in July. Impressive for a fan of another team - I probably wouldn't be close if I tried to return the favor by guessing Falcons players' ages!

But as you said, QBs can play longer in this league, especially if they have talent around them, so Bulger's age shouldn't be a huge issue.

I think Bulger is a guy that can look good if he has fantastic weapons around him (Faulk, Bruce & Holt - all in their prime)

A couple of things here. Let's start with the talent around him, and forgive me for not being completely original, but I made a response a few weeks ago on a similar topic that I'm going to draw from here simply because, well, it's less work.

Holt in his prime, yes. Holt was 27 when Bulger took over full time in 2003 and had arguably his best years as a pro with Marc throwing him the football. Bruce in his prime, not so much. Bruce was 30-31 when Bulger became the consistent starter in '03. Receivers definitely can and are still effective at that age, but I wouldn't personally refer to it as their prime. Faulk in his prime, no way. Faulk was 30 and only played in 11 games the year Bulger took over as the full-time starter. That was the beginning of the end for Faulk, not his prime.

But you've mentioned three players out of eleven offensive starters, so let's keep looking. We talked about how Faulk was not in his prime when Bulger took over, so how was the running game for Marc as QB? When Bulger was successful and "looked good," from 2002 to 2006, the Rams ranked 30th ('02), 30th ('03), 25th ('04), 22nd ('05), and 17th ('06) in average rushing yards per game. Even with Jackson's break-out year in '06, they were still middle of the pack. Before that, consistently near the bottom of the pack. So he hasn't had fantastic help in the running game. What about protection? One of the weaknesses of the Mike Martz offense is that there isn't a high value placed on protection, or at least if there is, it often doesn't translate to the field. Again, during Bulger's most successful years, the Rams' pass protection when compared to other teams according to sacks allowed ranked 27th ('02), 24th ('03), 27th ('04), 26th ('05), and 27th ('06). Keep in mind that last year was under Linehan, when Bulger had a career season.

So we know that while Bulger may have had some talent to throw to, he never had the support of a consistently good running game nor did he have much protection along the offensive line. An additional unit though that can really help your quarterback is your defense. While they don't share time on the field, a stout defense can keep your opponent from scoring and not force the offense to go one-dimensional to try and play catch-up. So how did the Rams' defense do during this span? The Rams fielded units that ranked 23rd (02), 17th (03), 25th (04), 31st (05), and 28th (06) in scoring defense. Again, not much help there; like the running game, there's one average year mixed in with a bunch of poor seasons.

I understand and agree that Bulger had a great duo at WR in Holt and Bruce. Holt in his prime and Bruce, though aging, still very effective. Bulger also had a nice number three target in Curtis, who really emerged in '05 and '06. But looking at the whole picture, one must also realize that he did not benefit from the kind of protection most QBs are afforded, he did not have a capable running game to regularly rely on for balance, and he did not have much help from the defense in keeping the opposition off the scoreboard. Furthermore, in order for Bruce and Holt to actually be weapons, Bulger had to actually get them the ball. It's fine to say a guy has talent at WR to throw to, but he still has to make the throw, does he not?

And finally, to the second point I wanted to make about this statement, why is it held against Bulger that his most successful years came when he was surrounded by good talent when other successful quarterbacks in the NFL are guilty of the same thing? Who surrounded Peyton Manning when he had his best seasons? Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, etc. Not to mention Pro Bowl offensive linemen like Jeff Saturday and Tarik Glenn. Who surrounded Carson Palmer in '05 and '06 during his best years? An All-Pro receiver in Chad Johnson, another near thousand-yard receiver in Houshmandzadeh, and a near 1500-yard rusher in Rudi Johnson. Again, their OL wasn't exactly shabby as well. Did the players around Kurt Warner from 1999 to 2001 not also help him be all that he could be? Are the players around him now not also doing the same? How did Warner do when the offense started to deteriorate here in 2002?

I could name more examples, but I hope you see my point. Quarterbacks need guys around them with talent doing their job to help them succeed. They can't do it all on their own, and that's true of even the best of them. If you think Marc Bulger is an average quarterback, that's fine. I'm not here to try and convince people that Bulger is the greatest thing since sliced bread because I don't think that either. But when you describe him as a guy that can look good if he has fantastic weapons around him, I can't help but wonder if that isn't true in large part for the position as a whole. IMO, it's very rare that you see a QB really succeeding without weapons around him helping him achieve that success.

If you think "close-minded" is insulting - wow, you should see the Falcons messageboard - that would almost be a compliment. But since you are the moderator, I will try and refrain from such abusive language like "close minded".

I'm not sure whether or not I personally think it's insulting, but the fact of the matter is it's a comment about the poster individually and not the content of their post, and that's not allowed here.

As for what goes on at Falcons message boards, that really isn't of much concern to me. We have our own rules for this community, the first of which is to remain civil even in heated discussion. That means not attacking someone personally by calling them names or making comments about them as individuals, but rather focusing on their position or response in a civil manner.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic in your final sentence by referring to the phrase in question as being "such abusive language," but I'll just reiterate that the rules need to be followed regardless.

[keith m. klink]

i think that the Rams will fill the QB spot somewhere between rds 3-5 . and if the RAMS PICK AT #2 OR #3 , I WOULD TAKE ...... CRABTREE .

[Falconator]

i think that the Rams will fill the QB spot somewhere between rds 3-5 . and if the RAMS PICK AT #2 OR #3 , I WOULD TAKE ...... CRABTREE .

Crabtree? really.....wow, I think you are more likely to get pounced on for that than me saying draft the QB......

Its offensive tackle or bust ......

My opinion is still the same. If you think one of the QBs is a "franchise QB" you take him......otherwise, grab one of the stud offensive tackles - most likely Andre Smith but perhaps Michael Oher.

[tdog08]

I say give Bulger a chance he used to be a top QB a few years ago the only thing that changed is the line getting worst. When was the last time we had a good defence though? Besides if Bulger does not play that good this year Colt Mccoy in 2010

[richtree]

why take crabtree when you can get Britt in round 2 ...

he is 6ft 4 in

benches over 400

top 3 wr speed wise...


after combine will be stud on all draft boards....

mel kiper will be talking about him all day

[Nick]

why take crabtree when you can get Britt in round 2 ...

he is 6ft 4 in

benches over 400

top 3 wr speed wise...


after combine will be stud on all draft boards....

mel kiper will be talking about him all day

We get it, you like Britt. You started a thread about him, so there's no need to respond to three other threads about it as well.

[Bar-bq]

We get it, you like Britt. You started a thread about him, so there's no need to respond to three other threads about it as well.

But what about Britt? How will the poor dear survive?

[Jockelite]

Actually if the Rams were to draft a QB I would much prefer Graham Harrell. Texas Tech and Rams fan that would be pretty cool. And Stafford is over rated and I just hate Bradford.

[MikeB1603]

The contract given to Bulger may have been a mistake, but the contract a #2 pick gets is going to be relatively close to what Marc will be making next year. I just don't see signing a new guy with no NFL experience as the solution. If this was '98 and Leaf and Manning were going to be available for us, I think we would still pass. There are far too many weaknesses on this team to take QB in round 1. I still have confidence Bulger can make a pro bowl again in his career, btw. But he has struggled the past couple of years and we can't smiply hope he will turn it around. I see us taking a QB in the later rounds, Todd Boeckman...?

[jkramsfan]

I am starting to lean toward Stafford as our pick, I know about the Bulger contract but at # 2 we are going to pay big bucks for whoever we select just like we have the past 2 seasons, we have paid big money for a DT and DE, I think we should maybe drop that money on a QB instead of an O-Lineman. I really wanted a big offensive tackle first but I think we need to really think hard about how we are going to spend the $50 million or more that a # 2 pick will get.