Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What about keeping Bulger as a starter

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    What about keeping Bulger as a starter

    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.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

    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.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

      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.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

        Originally posted by BarronWade View Post
        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.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

          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.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

            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.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

              Originally posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
              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.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                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.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                  Originally posted by sakl18 View Post
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                    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.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                      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.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                        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.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                          Originally posted by TheBritishRam View Post
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                            Originally posted by dave626 View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by Guest; -03-21-2010, 10:30 AM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: What about keeping Bulger as a starter

                              Originally posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse
                              • r8rh8rmike
                                Round Two: The Future Of Marc Bulger
                                by r8rh8rmike
                                01.13.2010 1:40 pm
                                The future of Marc Bulger
                                By Roger Hensley


                                THE WATERCOOLER

                                QUESTION: There’s been much speculation on the future of Rams’ QB Marc Bulger: Will he retire? Be cut? Be traded? Or will he remain as the Rams QB for another season as a young QB is mentored. Do you believe Bulger will be under center for the Rams when they open next season?

                                JIM THOMAS
                                I still think it’s better than 50-50 that Bulger will not be back. And if he’s traded to a non-contending team he may pull a Jake Plummer and just retire. But in order to dispose of Bulger, the Rams need two quarterbacks — a veteran and a draft pick. How they fare on those two fronts over the next three months might have a lot to do with whether Bulger returns to St. Louis in 2010.

                                BERNIE MIKLASZ
                                I can’t say ‘Impossible’ but I doubt very much that we’ll see him QB the Rams in 2010. Bulger has taken a brutal beating on this job over the years and cannot stay healthy. The team is 5-31 with him as a starting quarterback over the last three seasons — though certainly there is plenty of blame to go around for that hideous record, and Bulger is only one piece of the team. But his play has declined, and his injury issues will only create more instability at a crucial position. Nothing personal, but at this point it is just best for Bulger and the Rams to move on.

                                BILL COATS
                                My guess is that he’ll be with the Rams next season, in some capacity. And that could well be as the No. 1 quarterback. What’s the alternative? There doesn’t appear to be a “franchise quarterback” available in the draft or free agency, and a trade would cost the Rams dearly as they try to rebuild in several areas. Neither Kyle Boller, who almost surely won’t be back anyway, nor rookie Keith Null showed that they are a better option than Bulger at this point.

                                JEFF GORDON
                                I believe Marc would be a better stopgap quarterback than almost any veteran the Rams could round up without sacrificing assets. But . . . given all that Marc and the team has been through the past three years, I can understand why the Rams would want to do something different just to do something different. One by one, veterans who have failed have moved on. Why could Marc be the one exception to that trend?
                                -01-13-2010, 04:39 PM
                              • L.A.RamFan
                                Marc Bulger out 4 weeks...
                                by L.A.RamFan
                                With a broken tibia. I'd like to see Null.
                                -11-23-2009, 03:57 PM
                              • Bralidore(RAMMODE)
                                Bral Backing Bulger...
                                by Bralidore(RAMMODE)
                                I believe Bulger can still contribute and will at the very least be back next year (hopefully with a renegotiated contract). I think, with the right chips in place, he can lead us to a .500 record next year.

                                Bulger's faults is his lack of mobility and improvisation skills at this point in his career. He seems to lack the ability to be elusive in the pocket and goes down once penetration is achieved. He has never been mobile, but in recent years he just hasn't been able to make things happen in the passing game, especially on the run. Every time he's taken off Ive literally held my breathe and felt my palms get sweaty.

                                I think this season, his worse to date, has humbled him. Hopefully he can use this as fuel to fire himself up to be that player he once was. Mid 30 resurgences are very possible as we have seen with Favre, Warner, Moon, etc. He can turn it around if hope is restored in his mind and he believes we can make some noise, as we've seen, he has the tools.

                                Ive also come to this decision of keeping Bulger because of lack of depth and options. Keith Null is not ready from what we've seen his first year, Boller better not even be in camp, and who is Mike Reilly? I think Bulger is better than any guy that we can get in FA barring the Eagles releasing Mcnabb. Let Bulger remain as that vaunted stop gap option i keep hearing about and lets play ball. West Coast offenses demand accuracy. Bulger was the most accurate passer in football at one point. We focus on the run, once we get that second change of pace back to compliment steven jackson, we could run a three headed monster with the likes of Ogbonnaya as well.

                                All that being said, give Bulger another year and take the BPA in round 1.
                                -02-01-2010, 07:57 PM
                              • Bald_81
                                I believe Bradford is now a lock to go first overall
                                by Bald_81
                                I was hesitant to break out my crystal ball before the start of free agency because I needed a little more time and information to predict anything. However, I now believe Sam Bradford is a lock to be the first name called on April 22nd. For all I know, we could trade for Michael Vick in the next four days or have a draft day trade with Philadelphia but I don't really see either happening.

                                The signing of A.J. Feeley speaks volumes. Why? I'll tell you. It's easy to rationalize by Devaney and Co. because all it looks like is a replacement for Kyle Boller. He is a perfect fit here because he has great knowledge of Shurmur's offense and worked with him in Philadelphia. I think this is exactly why we haven't cut Bulger yet. If we go into mini camps prior to the draft with Bulger and Feeley, it doesn't fully tip our hand towards what we are going to do with the #1 pick. It buys Devaney time to say we're evaluating our quarterbacks and we'll see who emerges as the starter. If they were to release Bulger today, we would only have Feeley, Null, and Reilly on the roster. At least if we keep Bulger, it wouldn't look painfully obvious that we are taking Bradford.

                                I believe the plan of action is as follows: We enter mini camps with Bulger, Feeley, and Null fighting for the starting job. Spagnuolo does his usual "we already know Marc and we've seen Keith a little bit last year" routine when explaining how he's going to go about figuring out the position. Then, on April 22nd, we draft Sam Bradford first overall. The other up side of keeping Bulger on the roster until then is leverage in negotiations because there is the threat we can easily take Suh/McCoy and just go another year with Bulger as our QB. Suh/McCoy would both fall in slots two and three, where as Bradford would take a hit falling to number four. That would help us immensely in terms of getting a contract done before the draft. Afterwards, we shop Bulger around and see if we can get anything. If not, we release him soon afterwards. Feeley enters the season as the starter, lasts six-eight games, and the Bradford era begins.

                                The only big hurdle keeping this from happening right now is how Bradford performs at his pro day. However, from everything I've read about the combine and his shoulder everything came back well and teams were satisfied with his progress. I can't say I agree totally with the pick, but I definitely see the logic and reasoning behind it. As of right now, I don't see anyway Sam's not a Ram on April 22nd. Not my preferred choice, but as always I'll stand behind the decision.
                                -03-05-2010, 12:53 PM
                              • Varg6
                                Bulger shouldn't play for the rest of the year.
                                by Varg6
                                Guys, we aren't going to the Superbowl.

                                This guy has suffered enough, and I really feel for the guy. I think as a well-respected player, he deserves to (at the least, have the option) sit out the rest of the year and get healthy for next year. I have an inkling that we aren't going to be getting rid of him, because regardless of drafting the QB of the future or not, Spags will more than likely want Bulger to mentor him.

                                Your thoughts, my brothers and sisters?
                                -11-24-2009, 02:52 PM
                              Working...
                              X