Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: The QB argument

  1. #16
    peramoure is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    237
    Rep Power
    11
    Also, I got Ed Johnson and Eric Foster mixed up. Sorry about that.

    Second, for all of you who say that this is a team sport, look at the crappy teams. Crappy teams have crappy quarterbacks, and with the exception of Dilfer and Johnson (who managed the game) they are EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE. The rule is that elite quarterbacks make it to the superbowl. The EXCEPTION is that an average QB gets you there.

    I think we have enough young talent on the line to do well with Spags coaching them up. We need a qb otherwise our offense stays in first gear like we did all season.

    And for the record, our line is filled with talent. We have one of the highest paid O-lines in the entire sport. REMEMBER David Carr getting sacked over and over and over? And then he left and that trend WENT AWAY? Did it ever occur to you that maybe Bulger isn't that savvy?

    And here is a great article.

    Why does everyone think Suh will be some immediate dominant presence? Mario Williams wasn't. Glenn Dorsey wasn't. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT (ever?) didn't even make a huge impact with the Redskins. Cmon folks, Suh is not some mythical savior.
    Last edited by Nick; -02-01-2010 at 10:49 PM. Reason: Merging back to back posts & removing a link, please copy and paste articles rather than linking, it's in the rules


  2. #17
    rammiser's Avatar
    rammiser is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,001
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Also, I got Ed Johnson and Eric Foster mixed up. Sorry about that.

    Second, for all of you who say that this is a team sport, look at the crappy teams. Crappy teams have crappy quarterbacks, and with the exception of Dilfer and Johnson (who managed the game) they are EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE. The rule is that elite quarterbacks make it to the superbowl. The EXCEPTION is that an average QB gets you there.

    I think we have enough young talent on the line to do well with Spags coaching them up. We need a qb otherwise our offense stays in first gear like we did all season.
    This post has completely confused me. Elite qb's make it to the Bowl but an average qb gets you there? So all the other qb's are either average or elite in your mind. There are an aweful lot of exceptions that have made it to the Superbowl then. Explain the Steelers Big Ben is elite why didnt they make the playoffs? Brady is elite how did they lose to a team with a qb that threw for what 30 yds? I could say to look at most the crappy teams and say they probably have another defenciency besides not having a good qb. Like not having a good o-line (money does not mean good). Like having a horrible defense. Like having horrible wr's or not having any running game at all. Did Matt Schaub not play at an elite level this year? The Texans didnt make the playoffs.

    I would consider these teams crappy as you called them. Redskins,Seahawks,Rams,Lions,Tampa,Oakland,Kansas City,Cleveland and Buffalo. Out of all those teams I think a good qb would have only changed one of their season outcome. That team would be the Redskins, due to the fact they have good o-line and d-line to help that team win. On top of that despite not having an elite qb they are the only team that had a top 10 defense. That means even fighting turnovers and failed offensive drives they still held their own. Crappy teams are bad not just because of the qb position. Having a bad qb doesnt help but having no talent surrounding the qb doesnt help either.

    Bulger is hardly a crappy qb, but an average to above average qb on a horrible team. You can't judge Bulgers career on just the last 3 years. He has put up good numbers before and the decline of the team has been his demise. How do you explain Cutler going from a pretty damn good qb in Denver to an interception machine in Chicago? I'll answer that for you the Bears offense sucks. Culter went from having a guy like Marshall to throw to, to having a guy like Johnny Knox to throw to???

    As for our offense staying in first gear all year long you lay it all on Bulger??? Wow the rediculous drive killing penalties and turnovers by wr's and te's inside the five yard line are on Bulger? The wr's dropping balls hitting them right in the hands is on Bulger? The wr's running wrong routes is on Bulger? Bulger is not without blame but is hardly to shoulder it all. I believe Bulgers career as a Ram is over but I dont care who you bring in at qb if it is the same players as last year that qb will not be effective either. The problem is the team probably will improve at some positions and if the team has success people will come out and say I told you so on Bulger. Elite qb's dont make a team, a good team makes an elite qb.
    Just Fix It

  3. #18
    peramoure is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    237
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The QB argument

    You know what, I think Bulger is a far beow average QB. And maybe therein lies the difference of opinion. Boller and Null ran the offense as well as Bulger, and if that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will.

    And for real man, look at the Steelers and the Texans record. WINNING record. Not 5-11, not 1-15, but a WINNING, productive record, that didn't make the playoffs. Hell, just look at the teams that MADE the playoffs and show me a QB that isn't the "QB of the future" or an already established franchise guy. There wasn't one.

    But if you think Bulger is average or above average, then more power to you. I understand why you want Suh then and it makes sense. I don't see much in Bulger and would cut him if I had the opportunity considering all aspects of the situation.

    EDIT:
    Also, a good team MAKES and elite QB? I would say that is def the case in the Jets situation, or the superbowl winning Bucs or Ravens as have been mentioned before.

    However, I don't think Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie and Dallas Clark MAKE Manning. He made them good. I don't think that the 10,000 WRs the Saints have MADE Drew good - he made them look good. I guess this is just another difference of opinion.
    Last edited by peramoure; -02-01-2010 at 10:10 PM.

  4. #19
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    And for the record, our line is filled with talent. We have one of the highest paid O-lines in the entire sport. REMEMBER David Carr getting sacked over and over and over? And then he left and that trend WENT AWAY? Did it ever occur to you that maybe Bulger isn't that savvy?

    And here is a great article.

    Why does everyone think Suh will be some immediate dominant presence? Mario Williams wasn't. Glenn Dorsey wasn't. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT (ever?) didn't even make a huge impact with the Redskins. Cmon folks, Suh is not some mythical savior.
    Ahhh....the bastion of uncommon sense and journalistic disintegrity that is Bleacher Report.

    Tell me, are they still reporting that Pitt is joining the Big Ten on Friday?

    /Once of their writers disses the site's credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    You know what, I think Bulger is a far beow average QB. And maybe therein lies the difference of opinion. Boller and Null ran the offense as well as Bulger, and if that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will.
    No. No they didn't. Keith "The Peashooter Gunslinger" Null had 3 more INTs than Bulger in 5 fewer starts, a QB rating that was 20 points lower, 900 fewer yards passing and only produced TDs off of drives that began on the opponents side of the field. Kyle "White Tony Banks" Boller had as many picks as Bulger in 2 fewer games, had at least one incredibly stupid fumble, a QB rating that was nearly 10 points lower than Bulger, 500 fewer yards, and as many TDs as Null.

    I'm sure your response will be something nebulous and intangible, such as "They are better leaders" or "They have more grit" or something equally stupid and meaningless, but the statistics declare otherwise.

    And for real man, look at the Steelers and the Texans record. WINNING record. Not 5-11, not 1-15, but a WINNING, productive record, that didn't make the playoffs. Hell, just look at the teams that MADE the playoffs and show me a QB that isn't the "QB of the future" or an already established franchise guy. There wasn't one.
    That's easy. Minnesota.

    And I'm sure all of them are happy that they had a winning record (ok, the Texans maybe, but thats because that was the best finish in franchise history). If Big Ben was elite on a game-changing level, perhaps there wouldn't have been that 5 game losing streak that pretty much ended the Steelers season.

    But if you think Bulger is average or above average, then more power to you. I understand why you want Suh then and it makes sense. I don't see much in Bulger and would cut him if I had the opportunity considering all aspects of the situation.
    I wouldn't...simply because we can't do better in terms of a veteran replacement next year, and I would sooner distribute crystal meth and guns to the local chess club than trot out a rookie as our starting QB next year.

    EDIT:
    Also, a good team MAKES and elite QB? I would say that is def the case in the Jets situation, or the superbowl winning Bucs or Ravens as have been mentioned before.

    However, I don't think Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie and Dallas Clark MAKE Manning. He made them good. I don't think that the 10,000 WRs the Saints have MADE Drew good - he made them look good. I guess this is just another difference of opinion.
    The Colts and Saints wideouts are very good. Very, very good. Manning is still elite, and Brees is very good, but the wideouts help.
    Last edited by Nick; -02-01-2010 at 10:49 PM. Reason: Merging back to back posts and removing his link

  5. #20
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,325
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Second, for all of you who say that this is a team sport, look at the crappy teams. Crappy teams have crappy quarterbacks, and with the exception of Dilfer and Johnson (who managed the game) they are EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE. The rule is that elite quarterbacks make it to the superbowl. The EXCEPTION is that an average QB gets you there.
    There's no getting around the fact that only two teams are going to make the Super Bowl. Unless there are only two elite quarterbacks every year in the NFL, then obviously some elite quarterbacks are going to miss out on making it to the Super Bowl. It requires not just an efficient quarterback but an efficient, talented team to accomplish that kind of success.

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    And for the record, our line is filled with talent. We have one of the highest paid O-lines in the entire sport. REMEMBER David Carr getting sacked over and over and over? And then he left and that trend WENT AWAY? Did it ever occur to you that maybe Bulger isn't that savvy?
    This argument falls apart when you consider that other quarterbacks have not been protected well by this line and lines of the past either. For instance, Kyle Boller was sacked way more on average in 2009 than Bulger was.

    Spending money on and having talent doesn't mean much if the talent doesn't perform up to their potential. This offensive line could be very good, but hasn't been yet except for perhaps a small window in the middle of the season.

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Why does everyone think Suh will be some immediate dominant presence?
    Since we're generalizing, why does everyone who wants a quarterback assume that the guy we'll spend a high first round pick on will become an elite passer? If you're talking about fans who think Player X is going to save the franchise and be a savior for the Rams, I think that point of view is more prevelent in the population of fans who want a QB versus the population of fans who want Suh.

    The fact of the matter is there probably isn't anyone who is going to be an instant saviour for this team. Simply drafting a quarterback in the first round isn't going to suddenly turn this ship around. If that was how it worked, then Detroit and Tampa Bay would have been in contention for playoff spots. Instead, they were right there with us in the race for the first overall pick, because it takes more than spending a pick on a QB to field a competitive let alone Super Bowl bound team.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  6. #21
    peramoure is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    237
    Rep Power
    11
    Hey Peoria - you must have took offense to something I said, because you're acting like a jerk. Consider having a discussion without attacking someone for having an opinion. Cheers.

    The Bleacher Report - an article written AS an editorial AS an opinion. Not facts, not news, but an opinion - just like mine and just like yours. I'm just sharing an opinion.

    "I'm sure your response will be something nebulous and intangible, such as "They are better leaders" or "They have more grit" or something equally stupid and meaningless, but the statistics declare otherwise."

    No, it won't. I think Bulger sucks, and I would rather put anybody on the field than someone we know doesn't get the job done, and hasn't in years. Thanks for the discredit again. You seem angry about something. Weird.

    "That's easy. Minnesota."

    Yes, Brett Favre didn't have an amazing season, nor is he one of the greatest QBs of all time. Strange argument. The point I'm making is it is very very very difficult to do anything without an above average QB.

    Regarding the "first round QB", I don't think that the likelyhood of a DT vs a QB will have any difference of being a bust or a savior. I think a QB makes far more of an impact on the field, and with that I would rather go that route. Again, like I mentioned before, this is a difference of opinion. I know it makes you angry and disrespectful but that is your issue, and not mine. :-)

    Nick, I like your arguments. They are very well thought out. I didn't think that Boller was sacked more than Bulger was on average so that discredits what I said. I do think our line is better than it played last year, and considering we may be more stable with Smith up to par and Cog gone who knows. I still want Clausen or Bradford.

    I don't think there is an instant savior either. It seems like a lot of folks want to point out that good teams have won the superbowl with average QBs but that is not the norm. Everyone seems to get so wrapped up in their emotions, just like folks did about Glenn Dorsey, and Chris Long, and Vernon Gholston. These guys are the busts (Long? Debatable) that nobody mentions when saying we need Suh.

    Everyone who wants Suh mentions Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Tom Brady as late rounders we can pick up.

    Everyone who wants Suh doesn't mention Gholston, Dorsey, Long. Look at the 2007 draft guys - Suh is NOT a slam dunk. Neither is Bradford or Clausen, but it is what I would PREFER. I'm making a case for it. That doesn't justify being a jerk or smarting off like you're some football wizard. Try to tell me you didn't think highly of some of these guys below, because the General Managers of football teams certainly did. We can look at 2006 and 2008 if you'd like, but this is just an example. I don't understand why the Suh fanbase seems to think he's just this slamdunk perennial probowler.

    Gaines Adams (4)
    Jamaal Anderson (8)
    Amobi Okoye (10)
    Carriker (13)
    Justin Harrell (16)
    Jarvis Moss (17)
    Anthony Spencer (26)

    2008 Draft. And I remember how freaking badly I wanted the Rams to get Gholston or Ryan, just for the record. Is there anyone that is seeing this that realizes the hype that goes into the draft compared to the results? It is really, really hard to translate DLine into the NFL, just like any position.

    Glenn Dorsey (5)
    Vernon Gholston (6)
    Sedrick Ellis (7)
    Derrick Harvey (8)
    Lawrence Jackson (28)
    Kentwan Balmer (29)
    Last edited by Nick; -02-02-2010 at 12:20 AM.

  7. #22
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Hey Peoria - you must have took offense to something I said, because you're acting like a jerk. Consider having a discussion without attacking someone for having an opinion. Cheers.

    The Bleacher Report - an article written AS an editorial AS an opinion. Not facts, not news, but an opinion - just like mine and just like yours. I'm just sharing an opinion.
    Relying on the opinions of others, especially others who have been known to have been severely mistaken in the past, is not a good way to make your own point. That article has been massacred on several Ram sites, including this one IIRC, because of its inaccuracies.

    "I'm sure your response will be something nebulous and intangible, such as "They are better leaders" or "They have more grit" or something equally stupid and meaningless, but the statistics declare otherwise."

    No, it won't. I think Bulger sucks, and I would rather put anybody on the field than someone we know doesn't get the job done, and hasn't in years. Thanks for the discredit again. You seem angry about something. Weird.
    1. Those points have been the typical rejoinder to (correct) claims that Bulger is a better option than Boller and Null, and I was simply skipping a step or two by pointing out the fallacies of that rejoinder.

    I also am very sure that Bulger, who won games as recently as 2006, is a better option than anything else we could trot out next season, because when your best veteran options are Jason Campbell and Chad Pennington, you might as well keep what you have.

    "That's easy. Minnesota."

    Yes, Brett Favre didn't have an amazing season, nor is he one of the greatest QBs of all time. Strange argument. The point I'm making is it is very very very difficult to do anything without an above average QB.
    Brett Favre was neither established in Minnesota prior to this season, nor is he the QB of the future there. You asked me to name a playoff team that didn't have either of those, and I did.

    Although, I would entertain discussion as to what material effect Favre actually had on Minnesota's fortunes; they made the playoffs last year as well.

    Regarding the "first round QB", I don't think that the likelyhood of a DT vs a QB will have any difference of being a bust or a savior. I think a QB makes far more of an impact on the field, and with that I would rather go that route. Again, like I mentioned before, this is a difference of opinion. I know it makes you angry and disrespectful but that is your issue, and not mine. :-)
    If this was just a position vs. position debate, MAYBE (A good DT is a very good defensive force multiplier; making everyone else on the field look and perform better). However, this is a question of risk management and raw talent, not position impact. Ndamukong Suh is more likely to be a successful DT in the NFL in the long run than Clausen or Bradford will be a QB.


    I don't think there is an instant savior either. It seems like a lot of folks want to point out that good teams have won the superbowl with average QBs but that is not the norm. Everyone seems to get so wrapped up in their emotions, just like folks did about Glenn Dorsey, and Chris Long, and Vernon Gholston. These guys are the busts (Long? Debatable) that nobody mentions when saying we need Suh.
    Long isn't a bust. Long is coming well along the learning curve, especially considering how he lost a year of training due to Haslett's inability/unwillingness to develop talent. (Put another way, 2009 was Long's de facto rookie season.)

    Dorsey's a bust in a similar way that Carriker is a bust. Both have been played out of position by their coaching staffs, and both have encountered a lack of success as a result. (Carriker is also hampered by Haslett and his inability/unwillingness to develop talent.)

    Gholston was the proverbial "workout warrior" and proof that it is possible to overthink and overrate based on the combine.

    Hopefully we'll be smart enough to play Suh in position and evaluate based on his on field performance.

  8. #23
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,659
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: The QB argument

    I dont see how Chris Long's performance is an argument AGAINST drafting Suh. The guy has been getting consistently better to the point where he was beastly at the end of the year. And he was getting double teamed. If Suh is going to be like Chris Long, then we should snap him up right now.

  9. #24
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,325
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Nick, I like your arguments. They are very well thought out. I didn't think that Boller was sacked more than Bulger was on average so that discredits what I said. I do think our line is better than it played last year, and considering we may be more stable with Smith up to par and Cog gone who knows. I still want Clausen or Bradford.
    The line hopefully will improve, yes. But I think we need to temper expectations, because that's only one piece of the puzzle. The Rams have huge question marks at the receiver position. None of the guys on the roster were able to become consistent difference makers in 2009. They'll have to make major strides in 2010 to make teams back off of defending Steven Jackson, our only real weapon.

    If you look at situations where teams have been successful with rookie/young quarterbacks, it's been because they already have a very strong team around them. The Jets, a 9-7 team the year before they drafted Sanchez, succeeded this year because they had the league's most productive running attack and defense. The Ravens, a 13-win team in '06 who had a down year in '07, succeeded with Flacco for similar reasons. The Falcons, who averaged 8 wins a year for three seasons before their down season in 2007, had the second most productive rushing attack in the NFL to protect Matt Ryan.

    My point is that these teams weren't as bereft of talent as our team likely is. The Rams have won a combined six games in the last three seasons, and look as if they'll not get much veteran help due to a watered down free agency. So it's not only going to take some improvements on the offensive line. It's going to take the addition of a second back and a commitment to the running game that recent Rams teams have never had. It's going to take some improvements in the receiving corps so that teams can't just stack the box and defend against this running attack like they did this year. And it's going to take some pretty significant improvements in defense as well. Otherwise I think we're looking at a Detroit scenario, where maybe we get our supposed guy of the future but it doesn't make much of a difference at all in this team's success.

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    It seems like a lot of folks want to point out that good teams have won the superbowl with average QBs but that is not the norm.
    Teams winning the Super Bowl with first overall or even Top Five QBs isn't the recent norm either. Only half of the last ten Super Bowl winning quarterbacks were first round picks. One of those five - Ben Roethlisberger - was not a Top Ten pick. Of the other four, two of them - Eli Manning and John Elway - didn't win the Super Bowl with the team that drafted them. Remember, Manning was drafted by San Diego but refused to play for them. Elway was drafted by Baltimore but wouldn't play for them.

    So only two of the last ten Super Bowl winning quarterbacks were first overall picks. I wouldn't exactly call that the norm either. And one of the quarterbacks in this year's Super Bowl, and arguably the second best quarterback in the league behind his competition, wasn't even a first round pick.

    I agree that the goal shouldn't be to have an average QB. But the point many would make is that you don't have to spend a first overall pick or even a Top 5-10 pick on a quarterback in order to get a guy who is going to perform very well for you on a consistent basis, let alone take you to the Super Bowl. Thus, reaching for lesser prospects and passing on other prospects simply because you need an elite QB just doesn't seem very wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Everyone seems to get so wrapped up in their emotions, just like folks did about Glenn Dorsey, and Chris Long, and Vernon Gholston. These guys are the busts (Long? Debatable) that nobody mentions when saying we need Suh.
    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Everyone who wants Suh doesn't mention Gholston, Dorsey, Long.
    Just like you don't mention Mario Williams, Haloti Ngata, or Kevin Williams.

    Just like how those who argue for using a high pick on a QB rarely cite examples like JaMarcus Russell, Alex Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington, etc.

    Let's please not make it sound like it's only the Suh advocates who shape their arguments to make them sound more appealing.

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    That doesn't justify being a jerk or smarting off like you're some football wizard.
    One or two lines of sarcasm in someone's post also doesn't justify you railing on them multiple times in yours. If you think their behavior is inappropriate, report the post. Don't make the situation worse by trying to call them on it over and over again.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #25
    richtree's Avatar
    richtree is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,122
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: The QB argument

    I think one thing that gets lost here is that every good team has a good offensive line. We haven't blocked anyone for 3 years. We finally have some pieces to have a decent offensive line. Other than the Packers most of the top 10 teams always have really good OLines.

    Although I am against the argument that QB's always make great teams.

    Dilfer is defintaley the expection and not the rulee.

    My theory is good teams can make a quarterback good.

    Ex. Eli Manning. His OLine turned around and spags defense was put in place and then Eli went from FLOP to SuperBowl winner in 2 years....


    Alex Smith was also turned around with new coaching, OLine help, and defense.

    Conversly, Matt Hasslebeck's demise has lots to due with a horrible OLine and bad coaching .


    So there is much, much more too it. Heck, Brady didn't even look good without a good OL, WRs , and defense...


    2010 off-season is gonna turn as around.

  11. #26
    BM_Face's Avatar
    BM_Face is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    43
    Posts
    436
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by peramoure View Post
    Trade back a few spots for whoever wants Suh, and draft Bradford or Clausen.

    Peace! Much love Rams fans! I have this MP3 if you would like to listen to it, I have an insider subscription.

    David
    Who would this proposed trade be with? What are the terms, because Suh for Bradford or Clausen is a poor trade without some other huge motivation. Neither Braford, nor Clausen has shown on-field dominance worthy of a top-5 pick. Making either of those QB's start any games in the NFL as a rookie would just be mean.

    Who ever said Suh would be a perennial Pro-Bowler? I never heard that. He could compete for a starting D-line position on any team in the NFL. He will start as a rookie on whatever team drafts him. Right now, Suh is on top of the food chain. I love it.
    A defeated look of consternation, dissappointment, or even pain. The name derives from the look one often gets when challenged by a large BM.

  12. #27
    The Optimistic Lamb's Avatar
    The Optimistic Lamb is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    351
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by hawaiianpunch View Post
    I totally agree that it is a team sport, any quarterback wouldn't do good behind the rams O-line.
    I've been saying that for a while now. I think we could put Payton Manning in Bulger's shoes and he wouldn't be able to do any better. Nobody blocks and nobody can catch. And unless Bradford can throw really well off his back, he won't be any better.

  13. #28
    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: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
    I've been saying that for a while now. I think we could put Payton Manning in Bulger's shoes and he wouldn't be able to do any better. Nobody blocks and nobody can catch. And unless Bradford can throw really well off his back, he won't be any better.
    Whoa whoa whoa, I live on the border of Indiana, NO one, I mean NO one, talks about his Lordship failing, even in a hypothetical sense. You just blew my mind

  14. #29
    ramsfantyler111's Avatar
    ramsfantyler111 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New jersey
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The QB argument

    I really hope we trade are pick to go down to a 3,4 or even 5th pick i dont think adressing the defense the first round everyyear is helping we need someone to come in and carry us like a Clausen to grow with r young wr's

  15. #30
    01d 0rd3r's Avatar
    01d 0rd3r is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    1,259
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: The QB argument

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsfantyler111 View Post
    I really hope we trade are pick to go down to a 3,4 or even 5th pick i dont think adressing the defense the first round everyyear is helping we need someone to come in and carry us like a Clausen to grow with r young wr's
    We didnt address the defense first round last year. Actually in the past 6 years we have gonna 3 offensive players and 3 defensive players.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A strange argument to make, but here goes...
    By swatter555 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -10-18-2009, 11:58 PM
  2. Replies: 91
    Last Post: -08-20-2009, 05:26 PM
  3. On Last Useless Preseason Argument - about Cheerleaders nonetheless ...
    By adarian_too in forum Articles by adarian_too
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -09-18-2006, 07:59 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: -03-10-2006, 05:47 PM

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
  •