Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    If Stafford is there at #2?

    Would you be interested in taking Stafford at #2 and then trading Bulger for a proven RT, NT, MLB, WR, or Draft Pick (maybe 3rd round). He could be attractive to another team that has a solid team accept at QB. He has a salary cap figure of 8.5 mil this year. If we trade him I believe we eat 8mil and only realize a .5 mil savings against the cap. We are currently around 13 mil under the cap with 6mil going to draftees. That means we would be 7 mil under which should be enough to get a good veteran in a trade and sign and vet backup QB. The reason I would consider Stafford is that QB is one of the hardest positions to judge and find. They are like finding a needle in a hay stack. You can often take the highest rated QB and he has a good shot at becoming a good NFL starter. However after that its hit or miss all the way through round 7. You can find them through out the draft but they are hard to judge. Look at the stock boy we got he did good but no one expected him to be good. I know we searched for a longtime before Warner and had the likes of Banks.

    I know this is not as much of a need this year and it goes against what I have been saying for a while as far as improve the areas of need this year and worry about next years needs next year. This year should we should be improved no matter what. But this would give us our franchise QB. I have a feeling after this year we won't be drafting any higher then mid 1st round (16th pick) for a good while. I think Spags will return this team to average this year and continue to improve it back to respectability.
    Last edited by RamsSB99; -03-21-2009 at 01:15 PM.


  2. #2
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    IMO i think Stafford is extrmely overrated! he forces throws sometimes and throws it inaccuratly at times. I compare him the to the mike martz version of Marc Bulger. Who had TDs but also had alot of ints.

    I dont think stofford will be a top 10 QB ever!!!!!!! and thats not worth the 2nd pick.

    This is why i hope the seahawks draft him.

    Also i dont think teams want bulger's contract for an injury-prone guy in his 30s.

  3. #3
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Also i dont think teams want bulger's contract for an injury-prone guy in his 30s.
    Money wise he would not be that bad because we would eat 8 mil of the salary and as far as injuries he started 15 games last year and has played behind one of the least affective OL's the last few years.

    I still think Bulger has a few good years left. But I would rather have a QB that shows emotion and gets his team fired up. Warner, Manning Brothers, etc. all show more emotion. I just don't like Bulgers vocal leadership as much. I am also not crazy about his arm. I think he can be affective but I would prefer a stronger armed QB that can zip it in there or not have to release the ball so early to make up for lack of arm strength. With all that said I think he is still affective and can do good its just he is not our future and we will need to get a future QB.


    We have tried to develop a few future QB's like Fitzpatrick behind Bulger without much success. My fear is we take a QB later in the draft and they normally need more time to develop. Its hard for QB's to develop when the starter is healthy they normally hold the clipboard for 16 games a year. What if we draft a later round QB backup to groom we need to give him at least two if not three years. If he winds up failing then we are stuck in a desperate situation because in three years Bulger will be sent out to pasture.
    Last edited by RamsSB99; -03-21-2009 at 04:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    896
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    I'll copy and paste what I said on another forum:

    He's not out of the question, but the fact that Devaney went to the Virginia Pro Day instead of Georgia's should tell you where the teams intentions lie. Personally, I hate the excuses that Bulger's contract prohibits us from taking him. The Jags at #8 are widely speculated to take him or Sanchez if they are there and they just gave Garrard an identical contract to Bulger's last off season.

    Granted, we did have representives at Georgia and they were probably for him. It was most likely just our QBs coach though. If I could get some confirmation on who was there that would be great.

  5. #5
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Our team has as many holes as swiss cheese, and I just can't justify wasting all that money and a high draft pick on replacing bulger who I don't consider a glaring hole. During the year I was a man on fire to get rid of Bulger, but I think he deserves another chance with a better(?) offensive line and a greater commitment to running the ball. If he can't put up this year then Spags wont tolerate it, he will be following ol Drew Bennett out the door and we will eat his cap hit. And if thats the case we will most likely be in the top ten and someone like Bradford or McCoy can be our guy.

  6. #6
    itsguud's Avatar
    itsguud is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Newfoundland
    Posts
    1,252
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    How are people still thinking this would be an option. BULGER is our guy. He will be our guy and that is it. Stafford and Sanchez are both way overrated in my opinion and I hope that the whiners hook one of them to sit on the bench with the rest of their bust QB corp.

  7. #7
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by itsguud View Post
    How are people still thinking this would be an option. BULGER is our guy. He will be our guy and that is it. Stafford and Sanchez are both way overrated in my opinion and I hope that the whiners hook one of them to sit on the bench with the rest of their bust QB corp.
    It takes two to three years to groom a QB that is not an obvious top QB selection. If we wind up around .500 this year and Bulger has a so-so or bad year then we could be drafting around 16 next year. Which means the top QB's could be off the board. Bulger is no longer an ascending player and he will not be here in three years. People are already questioning if he can even play good anymore. I think he could play decent for another year or two. But besides that he the ability to motivate others and build their confidence. He is not a real rah-rah type of guy. He is about as boring as watching paint dry. Guys like Warner, Mannings, and other QB's have that firey attitude that pumps up and instills confidence in the other players.

    I don't have a problem keeping him. Answer this though what do we do if we pass up Stafford and next year we are picking 16th or later? Bulger will have another year mileage. If he did not perform well we would not have an alternative to replace him next year. Bulger would only have a year or two after this year so who would you see replacing him?
    Last edited by RamsSB99; -03-21-2009 at 04:49 PM.

  8. #8
    rams 24/7 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Yeah Great, So Then We would have two QB's with a Combine Salary of about $120 million and 0nly 1 starts!

  9. #9
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by rams 24/7 View Post
    Yeah Great, So Then We would have two QB's with a Combine Salary of about $120 million and 0nly 1 starts!
    No if you would read the OP instead of trying to be a smart donkey you would realize I said if we got Stafford we could trade Bulger we would owe 8 mil of his 8.5 mil cap hit this year and then he is off the books. The rookie Salary cap for this year is 6mil for all the rookies. Stafford would probably be a cap hit this year of 4.5 mil and next year he would be cheaper then what Bulger would have been. Bulger would only save us .5 mil in a trade but we still have about 7mil left that we can spend after saving 6mil for the draft and what we have spent so far in free agency. We can use part of that 7 mil for a veteran player at a position of need MLB, NT, WR, SLB that we could acquire via trade of Bulger. If we decided to trade Bulger for a pick and use the 7mil on free agency we could do that as well. IMO I would rather try finding a proven solid veteran in trade.

    I said I would not mind keeping Bulger but that meaning I think he could be adequate this year and it means not going Stafford. What concerns me about that is with that method we would have to take a later round developmental QB with some flaws. How long will it take for us to coach someone up like that up when he would be holding the clipboard for 16 games during the year? What if we spend 2 or 3 years trying to coach him up and he don't pan out. Look at some of the coaching searches Dallas went through prior to Romo and look at how long Rodgers was stuck behind Favre.
    Last edited by RamsSB99; -03-22-2009 at 12:26 AM.

  10. #10
    jbell15's Avatar
    jbell15 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    california
    Posts
    253
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    It would be a viable option to draft a qb and trade bulger if bulger didn't have a contract the size of my, um, well you know what i mean.

  11. #11
    #39 Fan's Avatar
    #39 Fan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, formerly ATX
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    If Stafford is there at #2, I'd be listening to trade offers/shopping the pick

    #2 for a mid first, and second
    #2 for a low-to-mid first, a third, fourth, and a third next year.
    Then grab the top tackle available (Monroe/Smith/Smith), or BPA -- Defense.

  12. #12
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    896
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by jbell15 View Post
    It would be a viable option to draft a qb and trade bulger if bulger didn't have a contract the size of my, um, well you know what i mean.
    The Falcons had Matt Ryan's 6 yr, $72 mil contract and Michael Vick's 5 yr, $51 mil contract on its books the past season. The difference is they made it work by giving Ryan a small cap number for his first season so they could unload Vick's now (which they are trying to do, and will have to eventually cut him). So I am sick and tired of hearing about the excuses that Bulger's contract prevents us from taking him. I don't think we will take him, but if Devaney believes he is a franchise QB, you take him plain and simple.

    We're going to be seeing him for the next ten years regardless because Seattle is going to take him at #4.
    Last edited by Bald_81; -03-23-2009 at 05:20 AM.

  13. #13
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,610
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    If we trade him I believe we eat 8mil and only realize a .5 mil savings against the cap.
    Per beat writer Steve Korte, trading/releasing Bulger would COST the Rams $10 Million on the cap. No savings. A $10 Mil hit.

    There is absolutely 0% chance of moving Bulger this year.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  14. #14
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,903
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsSB99 View Post
    Would you be interested in taking Stafford at #2 and then trading Bulger for a proven RT, NT, MLB, WR, or Draft Pick (maybe 3rd round).
    No! Absolutelyy not!

  15. #15
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,531
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: If Stafford is there at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsSB99 View Post
    He has a salary cap figure of 8.5 mil this year. If we trade him I believe we eat 8mil and only realize a .5 mil savings against the cap.
    Actually I asked Howard Balzer about this a couple of months ago, and he says it's $11 million in dead money by cutting or trading Bulger. So I believe that's $2.5 million MORE that the Rams would have to count against the cap to move Bulger than to keep him. There is no savings; it would cost MORE to move him. IMO, I see no reason to block off $11 million against the cap for someone who isn't playing for us.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsSB99 View Post
    If we wind up around .500 this year and Bulger has a so-so or bad year then we could be drafting around 16 next year. Which means the top QB's could be off the board.
    While it means the top QB is likely off the board, it definitely doesn't mean the Rams couldn't possibly find another QB with their pick. Look at guys like Flacco, Quinn, Rodgers, and Campbell, who were all found outside of the top 15 in the first round. Even Big Ben and Jay Cutler were taken outside of the top ten.

Similar Threads

  1. Stafford Impresses At Georgia Pro Day
    By AvengerRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -03-19-2009, 07:33 PM
  2. Finding context in the Stafford debate
    By Goldenfleece in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -03-14-2009, 10:07 PM
  3. Matthew Stafford - Is he a possibility?
    By Bald_81 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -02-14-2009, 08:00 PM
  4. Matthew Stafford is looking real good
    By rNemesis in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -02-14-2009, 01:48 PM
  5. mathew stafford has SOME arm!
    By general counsel in forum COLLEGE
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -09-21-2008, 01:13 AM

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
  •