What about keeping Bulger as a starter

[dave626]

I am not in any shape form or fashion a Bulger fan, however if we keep him as the starter for 1 more year and let Bradford (assuming and hoping we draft him) stand next to Feely for a year and absorb what he can from both of them I think may, in the long run, benefit Bradford a great deal.

I dont think throwing Bradford or any other QB out there in the first year is the way to go no matter where they are drafted, I would much prefer a mentoring situation to be there, and to increase his chances of holding a clipboard his first year we would have 2 QBs in front of him, and at this point I still think Bulger would give us our best chance to win in 2010.

Null could be on the PS for a year and bring him up next year after Bulger moves on, as the 2nd or 3rd QB.

Bulger will probably go down at some point during the season and while Feely is playing Bradford could be learning from Bulger on the sidelines instead of Null, and come next year we have our QB and are in a much better position to take the BPA. In this draft I think we have to address the QB with the first pick, I believe the drop off in talant is just to great to wait until the 2nd or 3rd round.

So let me know what you guys think, who knows maybe thats the reason Bulger is still on the roster with a starters contract.

[The Optimistic Lamb]

Problem is, I think it's highly unlikely we are going to go into this next season with 6 Qb's on the roster: Bulger, Bradford, Feeley, Boller, Null, Reiley.

3 of them have to go. Keeping Bulger, Feeley, and signing Bradford means we let Null go. And thats not smart.

[BarronWade]

Spags and Billy D need to worry about there job security. IF we have a 0-16 season or a 1-15 season again then they are most likely gone. So who do you think will win more games and give us more hope for the future? A horrible Marc Bulger or Sam Bradford?

Also let the rookie learn from his mistakes.

[PeoriaRam]

Spags and Billy D need to worry about there job security. IF we have a 0-16 season or a 1-15 season again then they are most likely gone. So who do you think will win more games and give us more hope for the future? A horrible Marc Bulger or Sam Bradford?

Also let the rookie learn from his mistakes.

Wouldn't the rookie QB with a steep learning curve increase the chances of a 0-16 or a 1-15 season?

Screw hope. I want a solid coherent plan with the QB as the capstone, not the foundation.

[Mooselini]

I think it's really our only option at the moment. He is still signed to our team. I think Boller is gone, so I'm not worried.

Until we get our QB, like it or not, Bulger is the starter. Until things change we can speculate all we want. I really would not be surprised if Bulger starts this year.

[C-Mob 71]

I'm not saying I would like it, but at this point, with or without Bradford, Bulger is the best option we have.

I believe that our offensive line has talent, but I would rather have Bulger in there to take the hits while they gel instead of Bradford.

We are not the Jets, Ravens, Falcons, or Steelers. If we throw our rookie QB in there he will turn out more like Jamarcus Russel, Alex Smith, or David Carr than Sanchez, Flacco, Ryan, or Rothlisberger.

I think its time to draft the QB of the future, but thats exactly what he will be, our future QB. Putting high expectations on rookies, like taking us from 1-15 to even 8-8, is a recipe for disaster. Let Bradford sit and let Marc try to put something together.

[dave626]

Problem is, I think it's highly unlikely we are going to go into this next season with 6 Qb's on the roster: Bulger, Bradford, Feeley, Boller, Null, Reiley.

3 of them have to go. Keeping Bulger, Feeley, and signing Bradford means we let Null go. And thats not smart.

you have your starter (Bulger)
you have a decent backup (Feeley)
you have your future QB or work in progress guy (Bradford)
you take Null and put him on the PS.

No one is saying you take 6 QBs into the season, thats just stupid to even suggest.

Boller is an UFA so hes gone.
Reiley was signed late last year as an emergency guy.

Null was not so impressive last year that he earned the 2010 starting job, or backup job, or even a 3rd string spot. So if someone where to grab him off the PS then so be it because you would already your THREE QBs.

[sakl18]

Assuming we take Bradford, I think that the biggest problem with keeping Bulger would be the money. You would have Bradford at first overall money sitting on the bench, and Bulger still has his massive contract. I think the only way it has a chance of happening is if Bulger were to rework his contract.

[thickandthin]

Assuming we take Bradford, I think that the biggest problem with keeping Bulger would be the money. You would have Bradford at first overall money sitting on the bench, and Bulger still has his massive contract. I think the only way it has a chance of happening is if Bulger were to rework his contract.

We could always keep him this year and release him next year, so we don't have to lose as much money; if we released him this year we would lose a buttload of money.

[sosa39rams]

Hmmmm This is an interesting topic. I'd personally take Suh, but yeah I like the idea of sitting Bradford.

Maybe even just through mid season.

[TheBritishRam]

But with the amount of money being paid to first round QBs, especially those taken in the top 5, teams seem to be increasingly reluctant to sit a QB for the season opener let alone the whole rookie year.

[Bralidore(RAMMODE)]

My projections for the Rams approach this year. They will take Bradford with the first pick in April. They will have him in for training camp and work him out to see where he stands. Feeley (barring some awful training camp performances and/or injuries) will start initially with Bradford being worked into some games in 4th quarter situations if we're not in danger of losing or being beaten badly.

My overall projection is that Bradford won't see much starting action in year one if noone gets injured and/or plays abysmally.

[PeoriaRam]

But with the amount of money being paid to first round QBs, especially those taken in the top 5, teams seem to be increasingly reluctant to sit a QB for the season opener let alone the whole rookie year.

This. It will never, ever fly politically, especially in this town, to have $70-$80 million riding the pine uninjured for any length of time. If we can't start a rookie QB, we should not take one in the first round. We can find our starter elsewhere.

[The Optimistic Lamb]

you have your starter (Bulger)
you have a decent backup (Feeley)
you have your future QB or work in progress guy (Bradford)
you take Null and put him on the PS.

No one is saying you take 6 QBs into the season, thats just stupid to even suggest.

Boller is an UFA so hes gone.
Reiley was signed late last year as an emergency guy.

Null was not so impressive last year that he earned the 2010 starting job, or backup job, or even a 3rd string spot. So if someone where to grab him off the PS then so be it because you would already your THREE QBs.

What I was saying doctor obvious is that some team is sure to be interested in Null after he was forced to start for us. You may not like him, and im not saying he's worth a whole lot now, but he has more potential than an old vet. A team is sure to take him.

Why then do we want to keep him? Bulger benefits us for a year (or maybe 6 months). Keeping Null benefits us a couple years down the road. He could be our #2, he could be a potential draft pick, etc.

ps. You dont take a guy like Bradford #1 overall, pay him 70 million dollars, and sit him.

[thickandthin]

What I was saying doctor obvious is that some team is sure to be interested in Null after he was forced to start for us. You may not like him, and im not saying he's worth a whole lot now, but he has more potential than an old vet. A team is sure to take him.

Why then do we want to keep him? Bulger benefits us for a year (or maybe 6 months). Keeping Null benefits us a couple years down the road. He could be our #2, he could be a potential draft pick, etc.

ps. You dont take a guy like Bradford #1 overall, pay him 70 million dollars, and sit him.

very good point.