Marc Bulger is our QB- Suh should be our #1

[dave626]

what if, , Feely was bought in to mentor and train Null, while Bulger remains the starter. He is still on this team - Spags, and Devaney - I dont care what anybody says I like this guy. parahrasing of course, recent quotes

who knows whats gonna happen , we're ALL guessing

[rammiser]

But drafting Suh is supposed to be a magical cure all remember?

We don't need an offense if we have Suh...or something.

Look, I don't know who to take, I really don't. I know what we have now at offense isn't good enough, we need another QB and Bulger is not the answer. Do we take Bradford? Should we? I don't know.

BUT.

We should *really* stop making Suh out to be the best player to ever grace the NFL was his wonderful amazing franchise saving presence and come back to earth. He is a defensive tackle. If he is the best defensive tackle like everyone is saying and turns into a super all pro hall of fame guy....it improves our defense.

It does not win us games...not more than a handful at best anyway. It will not fix our franchise. Next season we will still need to fix our offense and if there is a defensive player that is supposed to be really good....people will be saying we need to draft him and not Locker.

I'd be curious to know if the same people saying not to take Bradford now would have said this last year, when he was supposed to be the top in the Draft if he came out. Did he magically lose his Franchise quarterback material because Suh is alive?

What gets me the most is that people *rightly* point out that Bradford isn't guarunteed...yet these same people say Suh is.

Are you serious? Why? Because he was really good in college? Will that translate to the NFL? People say it will.

Do we know? Are we certain? Is it 100% no risk what so ever?

Everyone drafted is a risk...and you know what if we draft Suh with all the expectations some people have...he'll be declared a bust by week 6 if he doesn't walk on water, destroy every quarterback to take the field and single handedly win games.

He's *probably* going to be a very good defensive tackle in the NFL. But we don't *KNOW* that and people need to stop acting like they do. If you don't want to draft Bradford that's fine...but provide us with alternatives other than:

1. Bulger.
2. "Well we can just take some other guy in round two or something..." Why? If Bradford is the best QB in the draft and he's not worth taking...why the heck should we waste another pick on some other QB? This is what makes me wonder if half the people voting Suh aren't doing so just because they like defense more than they do offense.

3. "It'll be great, we'll still suck and next year we'll get Locker and everything will be great!" No...it won't. If we have another terrible season (not just a bad one, a first pick in the draft bad one...so terrible...) we won't likely have the same people calling the shots and everything will have been wasted. All for what? The best DT since football was invented? So we could draft someone "next year" that might get a career ending injury or something? Sucking so we can have the best of both worlds next year is NOT an acceptable answer.

So...don't tell me: "SUH SUH SUH!" and not provide an alternative for Bradford. People say "we'll just draft another one later."

Which one?

Why?

Look dude a lot of the stuff you say kind of fits how I feel about the whole situation. First off If I knew I'd be an NFL scout. I have opinions and that's what this forum is for. I am of the opinion we should skip on Bradford and because everyone thinks we have to draft a qb this year I say get a guy later in the draft. Who, you ask? I don't know, what I do know is if we miss on the guy later in the draft we wont have franchise blockbusting money tied up in a qb who flops like we would if Bradford isnt a franchise qb. If we draft Suh and he flops it will be a set back but the money wont be as much and it's defensive tackle not the leader of the team. The setback this team will take on if they took Bradford and he stinks is a lot longer than the current rebuild mode we are in now. For one thing if they take Bradford and he flops they will wait 2,3, or even 4 years hoping he lives up to his big fat contract. Meanwhile because he isnt very good we will be winning 2,3, and maybe 1 games those years hoping the lightbulb comes on.

It's funny Marc Bulger a guy who had success in two different styles of offense all of the sudden got bad the same time the team got bad. So how is this bad team gonna make Bradford look really good? Unless Bradford is the next Manning he isnt gonna improve this team at all. You have to at least have good players around you to succeed. On offense I can honestly say the only sure fire weopon we have is Jackson. Our wr's are average at best and we have average te's and an avrage to below average o-line. Bulger became more injury prone as his career wore on and we are gonna use our fisrt pick on a guy coming off of major shoulder surgury and throw him behind the same o-line that got two of our three qb's hurt?

I'm not saying Suh is magical, i'm saying Suh is logical and makes sense for Spags style of coaching and shores up a big fat hole in our d-line. I think we all know, no one in the draft is a guarantee. In my opinion Suh is going to be a great fit for the Rams. Also in my opinion Bradford will be a bust and does not impress me, and none of the qb's in this draft really do. I have gone on record to say had Locker come out of college I would have liked to have seen the Rams take him first over Suh. I consider Locker to be a franchise qb in my opinon. Like I've said in many of my posts Clausen and Bradford are the best qb's in an average qb draft class. Does thsi make them franchise qb's i dont think it does.

[BrokenWing]

A big part of Bulger's problem was getting the crap beaten out of him. It remains a big part of his problem, though he looked less gun shy last season.

My post wasn't specifically targeted at you, it was targeted at pretty much everyone. I see people on here talk about Suh as if he is a logical choice (which is fine) but I also see alot of people on here act like he will single handedly make our entire team better and I think more realistic expectations are in order.

Yes, drafting a QB can wind up setting a team back if they don't wind up being good, but that's why I'm asking at the end of most of my posts what it is we should do if not Bradford. I've heard a few ideas, none of which make alot of sense to me, because sucking for another year to get a QB that anything might happen to between now and then doesn't make alot of sense.

Bradford was apparently really impressive in interviews, which is something to keep in mind during this entire discussion.

Neither player would upset me, if I haven't been clear on that. However the attitude of "we'll just wait for next year" or "we'll do it later" does, because it sounds an awful lot like people just don't care who's playing at QB as long as they get Suh, which is something of a mistake.

What we have right now on our roster doesn't work. Personally I suspect there is a chance Bradford could fall to the second round if half of the concern on this board is reflected by actual teams and the Rams don't take him with their first pick.

Also, not to sound like Bernie (because...wow) but QB is a risk, every year. The Rams have passed on that risk for three years. Unlike Bernie of course I actually understand why, they were hoping Bulger would straighten up and everything would be better again, and for good reason considering Bulger's play for the previous years of his tenure.

At this point though, Bulger needs to be somewhere else and we need someone else. If we don't take Bradford we should consider someone...but I'd really like to actually hear arguments about them, other than just a name and a sort of a shrugish tone of post. Someone should really go all out and defend why we should take McCoy or one of the others. Pretty much everyone here seems to despise Clausen and I've seen several posts explaining why, but nothing on McCoy or Levouver (sp?) or anyone else except the occasional Pike refrence.

I hope, quite strongly, that if we draft Suh he works out and we draft someone second round who works out at QB. I also hope if we draft Bradford that he works out and so on.

Since I don't think I've been clear enough on this point I'll say it again:

I'm not saying don't draft Suh, I'm saying I want a clearer argument as to why I shouldn't hope for Bradford over Suh. So far *most* of that argument has been focused on why Suh is amazing, usually followed by "but Bradford's shoulder" (A legit concern if it's still a problem, but so far all indications are otherwise) and a comment about it being risky to draft a QB in the first if you aren't certain they are a franchise QB.

*Why* isn't Bradford a Franchise QB?


Also, if not Bradford then who (this year) and why? Most importantly why...If for example not Bradford then McCoy...why McCoy?

I think one of the reasons you're tired of this argument is the same reason I keep trying to get people to be clearer and more detailed on it...because mostly the argument looks like this:

"Suh is amazing, Draft Suh. Bradford might have a bum shoulder and isn't a Franchise Quarterback."

"Suh is Amazing, but we need a QB something fierce, draft Bradford."

There's not alot to either side of that. I have seen some posts (Av's among them) arguing reasonably well for both situations and in detail, which is good. But I'd like to see more posts explaining why an option in the second or third round would be a good choice...on the merits of said QB, not on the merits of being cheap with risk.

It's hard for those of us who don't follow college football to be convinced one way or another without more detailed information...and I would really like to be convinced one way or another.

But, failing that, I hope whoever we draft works out and I hope, more than anything, that the argument doesn't keep going for years. This could easily be one of those Bulger vs Warner things that we never see the end of, in either direction, and I'd hate that.

More than anything, I'm deeply worried about our offense. As has been pointed out, our defense was actually reasonable last year, if not for the failings of the offense. So to me an improvement of the offense is also an improvement of the defense, because it will be on the field less frequently. Since it seems that people are going to continue to mistake my statements for being anti-Suh I'll probably just make this the last of them, at least the last of the large posts on the matter. If these posts read like I'm typing as I think there is a reason for that, and it occurs frequently when I'm looking for more on both sides of an argument.

I guess in the end I'll have to get over my dislike of College football and the fact that none of the teams around me are really worth watching. It would of course help if my college actually had a football team and not a soccer team..

[rammiser]

Try living in Las Vegas with UNLV as your college football team talk about non existant.

Any way I never stated you were for or against Suh. Just the fact that I'm not really sold on Bradford as a franchise qb. I know you want reasons I feel this way. Well I do watch a lot of college football but it's just a gut feeling. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you i dont like his footwork or his release. I also have nothing against Bradford or Oklahoma either. Just my opinion and thats really all it is. I will tell you the reason I like Locker is because that guy puts up good numbers on a terrible team. He doesnt have much help around him and still manages to find ways to put up good numbers. Again just my 2 cents and thats all it is.

I like you just want a successful draft for the Rams. If we take Bradford I wont moan and groan I will hope like hell that he is what they think he is. I also don't mind if we go the Ravens route and draft to build a great defense and take Suh. I don't really care for any of the qb's in the draft and that is just how I feel. I don't like Vick but i'd rather have him for a stop gap next year than any of the qb's coming out this year. I'd love if we could get a qb next year but I don't want the Rams to be terrible in order to do so. My opinions are just that however and the Rams front office will do what they think is the best thing to do and I will support it.

I respect your opinion and respect that you keep a level head when talking or debating these topics. I know you arent getting the answers from me you want because all I'm giving you is a gut feeling.

[ram1906]

Are we so set at DT that we can pass on with no question the BPA? This guy keeps pushing his workouts back and we dont see a red flag with that. The offense does need help and playmakers/difference makers. The guys that we had STARTING on our team last year came from other teams bench for a reason. I started this post pointing out Bulgers accuracy when he had polished route running receivers as weapons. Suh will not be the "Savior". But as our team stands now, he puts the defense in a definite upgrade when they are already pretty good. Spags was brought here primarily with what he did with that d line in New York. Its just 3 years removed and from that SB win, and I cant remember outside of Pierce a member of that defense that was not on the dline. There is a reason. That line dominated the game week in and week out. It got Spags put into the position he is in as our coach. Now we have an opportunity to match strengths and we must take it...

Now lets say we do draft Suh. That makes our 2nd round choice interesting and will be the pivotal pick of the draft. There will be at least 3 of the top 6 qbs sitting there. And we still need WRs and Tes. Teams are not elevated just in round 1. FA wont be the Rams answer because its a marriage situation and we are not team many players are jumping to go down the aisle. So in rounds 2, 3, and 4, we have to stay the course and improve with definite not stretches ( for some reason Wade, Klopenstein and Leonard come to mind ).

Now , again, staying the course, if we are concentrating on the defense side of the ball, at what point are we going to upgrade our return game. Hopefully, this will be addressed in the draft. We have not had that consistent threat since '99 (remember Tony Horne). Special teams is 1/3 of the game and we haven't focused there in a while.

[RebelYell]

Drafting a qb #1 overall has to be a guarantee and not a risk (see A. Smith, J. Russell) or else ur team can be knocked back several more years. No scout you can find is saying that Sam Bradford is an elite, can't miss prospect and it's not like putting him on the Rams is guaranteeing him playmakers either.

Are you actually of the belief that DTs are guaranteed and risk free?

Would you show me a scout that says Suh is elite / can't miss prospect that comes with a guarantee?

Defensive Tackles are just as risky as a QB. Especially DTs that are sold as pass rushers. Remember Glenn Dorsey?

And why is that if the Rams say Bradford is the BPA, they are wrong?

[DE_Ramfan]

Both Suh and Bradford could go on to have hall of fame careers. Both could also be busts. That's the risk you take drafting in the NFL. There's no such thing as a sure thing.

If the Rams take Suh and Bradford turns out better, the Rams look like fools.
If the Rams take Bradford and he struggles while Suh wrecks people. The Rams look like fools.

The only way the Rams win is if the player we take becomes a solid starter for years - no matter which guy they pick.

That being said... everyone know's this is a QB driven league. Even "defensive" coaches know you don't win without one. I read some comments on here about building a defense and doing it "Ravens" style... That defense was potentially legendary when they won the Super Bowl. Drafting Suh doesn't put the Ram's defense on that level. None of this matters though... on 3/26 Bradford will come out and throw the ball with some zip and he'll be the pick.

Oh, an hi guys, I'm new. 1st post and all that.

[RebelYell]

Bradford or Suh would be terrific picks. To me you can't go wrong with either pick.

W/ Bradford they had a reporter on 101.1 from Dallas who said that he was told by an offensive coordinator that Bradford was the best QB prospect since Peyton. How is it that scouts can rate him #1, offensive coordinators can say that but on a message board it's almost gospel this guy has nothing. Degrading Bradford doesn't make Suh a more obvious choice.

Suh is a beast and I'd be thrilled with him as the choice. The Rams could go with a guy like Orton or Campbell next year and build with the pounding offense and stout defense. I'm fine with that.

I think my biggest difference maker is that if the players are close to equal, I'd rather pay $70 million to a QB than $50 million to a DT. It's a once a decade situation where you can get a franchise QB in free agency (without trading picks) yet almost every normal free agency you can get a #1 type DT. Supply and Demand is overwhelmingly pushing towards the QB. If you have the chance to grab one, you have to eventually take a chance.

Bulger is NOT the answer. 3 horrible years in a row isn't a fluke. 5 straight years of declining statistics. Last year he completed 56% of his passes and a <6 yards per completion average. That's not even horrible - it's sub horrible. Null as a 6th round QB thrown in to develop and get his feet wet almost beat his stats. I'd rather go with Null next year than Bulger. At least Null has the chance to get better. I can not even start to comprehend how people are still holding out hope for Bulger.

[DE_Ramfan]

I'm with you 100% on that Reb. I think people are so enamored with Suh they look for every flaw they can find in Bradford and insist it adds up to a bad pick.

[ram1906]

Only have time for a quick note. Marc Bulger has been sacked 144 times (and thats without starting 16 games a season) over the last four years. Just saying. Hope that shoulder( Bradford) is locked in place. No doubt we have improved the O-line in FA and last years draft. But my goodness, any QBs stats will suffer when you are sacked 144 times (49 in '07).

[BarronWade]

You do know that we gave Marc Bulger the starting job in 09 and gave him a playbook that was for his strengths of being an accurate passer.

And what did this get us an often injured QB that could not throw past 20 yards. He has taken way too many hits and his strength is worse than Colt McCoy at this point.

And something that Bradford will bring that Bulger cant is Fans, intensity, and a fresh start.

Honestly i think even though Bradford's shoulder is 85% it is better than Bulger's at 110% in this point of his career.

Also if you blame the recievers for bulger's play than why dont we draft of get 1 in FA?

[Warner4prez]

Spags doesn't need a 1st overall DL player to improve this defense. His specialty is the DLine people, we don't need to sink 50 or 60 million dollars into one player for this coach to garner some results! Justin Tuck was a 3rd round pick, Osi Umenyiora was a late 2nd round pick. His DT's: Barry Cofield was a 4th rounder, Fred Robbins is a Ram and Chris Canty was also a 4th.

This bit of shinfo could be taken 2 ways I suppose.
1.) If we take a DL 1st overall who knows how much extra Spags will get out of him, but it could be amazing!
2.) We can dedicate our first few picks to offense, a side of the ball that needs it desperately, and let Spags work his magic on defense in later rounds.

[thickandthin]

ok it's official that I have fallen from the middle of the fence onto the side of Bradford. I mean our Defense was pretty darn good and with AC/Robbins we will be better at stopping the run and get a little more pressure than we did last year, Spags can work with that. But if we get Bradford and a beast TE our offense will be a lot better than last year.

[peramoure]

Thank you Big Red - I was about to make the same point. I am not concerned with a 10 win season in 2010 - the likelyhood is slim to none. I want a good team for a long time.