St. Louis Today: Rams have no choice but to pay Bulger

Angus

Active Member
Messages
5,097
Reaction score
20
Rams have no choice but to buck up for Bulger
By Jeff Gordon
STLTODAY.COM SPORTS COLUMNIST
07/05/2007

There aren’t many good quarterbacks in the NFL. Marc Bulger clearly ranks among the great ones.

So, yes, Bulger is going to collect top dollar on his next contract, one way or another.

There is no debate here. Bulger is a rare commodity. So the Rams should just do the right thing and lock him in to a long-term contract extension.

If Bulger plays out the final year of his four-year, $19.1 million contract, his value will only grow. He is comfortable with Scott Linehan’s offense, which exploits his passing accuracy and does a good job protecting him.

He has terrific weapons at his disposal and he plays behind a maturing offensive line. He is almost certain to post large numbers this season.

Pat Kirwan of NFL.com made the Rams front office wince by suggesting "Tom Brady money" -– about $60 million over six years -– wouldn’t be an unreasonable price for Bulger.

“Marc Bulger passed for over 4,300 yards last season to go along with 24 touchdowns and only eight interceptions,” Kirwan wrote. “That's the same number of touchdowns as Brady, with four fewer picks. Does he deserve a Tom Brady contract? The market keeps going up, but Tom Brady money?

“Probably, but he might have to go elsewhere to get it in 2008. The Rams love their QB, but I suspect the club and the player reps really can't see eye to eye on contract value right now. If both sides wait to play out the season, one side is sure to be quite disappointed.”

We’re guessing Bulger wouldn’t be the one with a sad face. The Lions have Jon Kitna at quarterback and Mike Martz running their offense.

Don’t you believe Mad Mike would ask the Lions to go “all in” for Bulger if he hit the open market in ‘08? Don’t you believe the Lions would take that plunge?

Jon Kitna will be a solid quarterback in Detroit this season, but he won’t deal the way Bulger can deal week after week after week. If Bulger heads toward free agency, Mad Mike will struggle to control his drooling.

Let’s look at this way: Which NFL quarterbacks are better than Marc?

Brady and Peyton Manning are the top guys, obviously. They post consistent numbers and they win the big games.

Drew Brees and Carson Palmer might be the next two in the pecking order, based on their big playmaking ability and their growth potential.

Donovan McNabb is in the Top Five, too, although he has suffered tremendous wear and tear while trying to will the Eagles to greatness.

Matt Leinart and Philip Rivers might some day have similar value, but both are still in development.

Tony Romo, Alex Smith, Rex Grossman, Jay Cutler and Vince Young may have tremendous futures, too, but they haven’t defined their real value yet.

Ben Roethlisberger? He was on his way to greatness before The Crash. Now we’re not so sure. He got picked off 23 times last season. Twenty-three!

Matt Hasselbeck? He’s pretty good, but he makes more mistakes than Bulger.

Jake Delhomme? If you like gunslingers, you love Jake . . . but he hasn’t been nearly as consistent as Marc.

Byron Leftwich? He has lots of potential, but much of it has gone unrealized.

Brett Favre? Once upon a time, he ranked atop the league. But he hangs too many passes into traffic.

Eli Manning? Please. His career may be heading south instead of north. The Giants may soon wish they had Rivers instead.

Daunte Culpepper? The Dolphins have gone years without a top-flight quarterback, so if they want to dump this young man . . .

Michael Vick? He is sure fun to watch dart around the field, but we’re not even sure he can actually play quarterback at this level.

Steve McNair? Great guy, tremendous leader, borderline Hall of Famer -- but not quite a Bulger-caliber quarterback in the autumn of his career.

Chad Pennington? Smart quarterback, but he lacks the arm to zing the ball into tight places the way Bulger does.

Damon Huard? He did a fine job as a fill-in last season. Now let’s see if he can lead a team for 16 weeks.

David Garrard? See Huard.

Trent Green, Mark Brunell and Jeff Garcia are at the end of their runs. David Carr and Joey Harrington have become rebuilding projects. Jake Plummer retired prematurely after failing in Denver.

Through the process of elimination, Bulger’s value becomes clear. He has very few peers in the NFL.

And consider the intangibles: His rapport with Linehan, his chemistry with Torry Holt and Co., his emerging leadership skills, his toughness, his work ethic and his general reliability.

Many NFL coaches come and go without having this sort of quarterback running the show. What Bulger does can’t be taken for granted -– and it won’t be in ’08, should he hit the market as a free agent.

The Rams have no choice but to pay up.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...CC269E08E19BAE988625730F0061D1A8?OpenDocument
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,482
Reaction score
67,294
Angus;1545789 said:
Eli Manning? Please. His career may be heading south instead of north. The Giants may soon wish they had Rivers instead.

I have yet to figure him out.

He looked like an All World QB in the first Eagles game where they came back to win.

Late in the year, he looked like he couldn't play anymore.
 
Messages
27,093
Reaction score
0
I don't agree about the Rex Grossman part... I like SF's QB better. I think Romo will prove to be the franchise QB for 7 to 10 years.

St. Louis would be stupid not to play Bulger, he's good.
 

adamknite

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,226
Reaction score
805
Bulger is very good, i don't know about great. they do need to lock him up though, when you find a good QB you can't let them get away.
 

SkinsandTerps

Commanders Forever
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
125
He isn't a great QB. Possibly one of the best in the league, but certainly not "great".

Although he would come at a bargain price for 6 years, 60 million. Brady money is a no-brainer for the Rams. More than that and I think we will see Tom Brady getting an astounding contract soon, or playing for another team.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,189
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Well, lets see.

Bulger is 30 years old. Six years isn't out of the question when you are talking about high dollar contracts. In six years, $10M for a very good QB would be cheap.

  • Bulger has a career 91.3 QB rating.
  • His career completion % is 64.4
  • Bulger threw for 4,301 yards last season with 24TDs to only 8 INTs.
  • In five season, he has only a single season (2003) that his QB rating was below 90.
  • He has NEVER been negative on his TD to INT ratio. (was even in 2003)

St Louis has to ask themselves. Are they hurting for money on the salary cap? If the answer is no, do they have a better player in mind? If they answer no to both, then resigning Bulger is a no-brainer.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
nyc;1545874 said:
Well, lets see.

Bulger is 30 years old. Six years isn't out of the question when you are talking about high dollar contracts. In six years, $10M for a very good QB would be cheap.

  • Bulger has a career 91.3 QB rating.
  • His career completion % is 64.4
  • Bulger threw for 4,301 yards last season with 24TDs to only 8 INTs.
  • In five season, he has only a single season (2003) that his QB rating was below 90.
  • He has NEVER been negative on his TD to INT ratio. (was even in 2003)

St Louis has to ask themselves. Are they hurting for money on the salary cap? If the answer is no, do they have a better player in mind? If they answer no to both, then resigning Bulger is a no-brainer.

Very good points. One minor negative. Last season was the first time he played all 16 games. It may be less of a negative if you consider that he only missed time under Mike Martz. The Martz offense while high powered often left the QB open to big hits and many hits. Now that Martz is no longer in St. Louis Bulger may make it a habit of playing 16 games every year.
 

03EBZ06

Need2Speed
Messages
7,984
Reaction score
411
nyc;1545874 said:
Well, lets see.

Bulger is 30 years old. Six years isn't out of the question when you are talking about high dollar contracts. In six years, $10M for a very good QB would be cheap.
  • Bulger has a career 91.3 QB rating.
  • His career completion % is 64.4
  • Bulger threw for 4,301 yards last season with 24TDs to only 8 INTs.
  • In five season, he has only a single season (2003) that his QB rating was below 90.
  • He has NEVER been negative on his TD to INT ratio. (was even in 2003)
St Louis has to ask themselves. Are they hurting for money on the salary cap? If the answer is no, do they have a better player in mind? If they answer no to both, then resigning Bulger is a no-brainer.
All good points. However, Georgia Frontiere, the Rams owner is a very cheap and terrible owner and she rarely ever gives out big contracts.
 

LeonDixson

Illegitimi non carborundum
Messages
12,299
Reaction score
6,808
I was hoping the rams would let Bulger slip away when the had both him and Warner; and that we would pick him up since we were looking for a QB. Alas, they were too smart for that.

They need to pay him. They could franchise him but then they would be paying him the average of the top 5 QB's which would be probably 3rd highest? Why not give him the money in a new contract and keep him happy and show him that you value him.
 

BouncingCheese

Stay out of my Bidness
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
0
The Rams are going to re-sign Bulger period. They will find a way to get it done. If that defense gets better (which it is) they are going to be a threat in a year or two. Bulger knows this and isn't going to leave for more dough since he would probably be going to a team that is worse off but has the cash to give him.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,230
Reaction score
20,501
If I were St Louis I would let him play out this year and then franchise him next year. Bulger is a very good QB, but I doubt he has more than three good years left in him. It would be better for the Rams to milk two more of those three good years than to pay him for six years and then eat his cap hit.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,189
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Verdict;1545962 said:
If I were St Louis I would let him play out this year and then franchise him next year. Bulger is a very good QB, but I doubt he has more than three good years left in him. It would be better for the Rams to milk two more of those three good years than to pay him for six years and then eat his cap hit.

Yeah, you need a QB. Lets piss him off and then when we actually need to do something with the franchise tag, we just lose him.

To me, the Franchise tag is for one thing and one thing only. To hold a player long enough so I get some value out of his leaving.
 

BouncingCheese

Stay out of my Bidness
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
0
Alexander;1545799 said:
I have yet to figure him out.

He looked like an All World QB in the first Eagles game where they came back to win.

Late in the year, he looked like he couldn't play anymore.

It was because he spent the entire summer and off-season working on his mechanics. He really was playing very well.

The reason he looked so pedestrian after around the Cowboys game was because he reverted back to his old backpeddling (spelling?) ways and had stopped continuing to continue to do the same drills he had done in this summer.

I am not saying that is the only reason but that is a big reason.

If he keeps at re-vamping his mechanics and stays at it during the season he is going to be scary. He is talented :laugh2: ( I know that sounds funny)
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,230
Reaction score
20,501
nyc;1545968 said:
Yeah, you need a QB. Lets piss him off and then when we actually need to do something with the franchise tag, we just lose him.

To me, the Franchise tag is for one thing and one thing only. To hold a player long enough so I get some value out of his leaving.

Everyone has an opinion. I understand your thought process. On the other hand, I do not think giving him a Tom Brady contract is the right thing to do. It is better to let a player go a year early than pay for three years longer than he is capable of playing. The Patriots have done a great job of being objective so far and letting aging veterans go.
 

Sarge

Red, White and Brew...
Staff member
Messages
33,771
Reaction score
31,538
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Alexander;1545799 said:
I have yet to figure him out.

He looked like an All World QB in the first Eagles game where they came back to win.

Late in the year, he looked like he couldn't play anymore.

Because his entire OL was out hurt - pretty simple.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
Sarge;1546495 said:
Because his entire OL was out hurt - pretty simple.

Pettigout missed the final 6 games -- McKenzie missed one game as did O'Hara. Snee and Diehl played every game.

McKenzie's missed game was against Houston -- both Petti and O'Hara played in that game. The Philly game in December was the only time 2 guys were out at the same time (O'Hara and Petti) - the protection might not have been great but he actually got sacked a lot less after Pettigout went out. Sure, they had trouble finding an LT but the entire line certainly wasn't hurt.
 

lspain1

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,372
Reaction score
33
abersonc;1546513 said:
Pettigout missed the final 6 games -- McKenzie missed one game as did O'Hara. Snee and Diehl played every game.

McKenzie's missed game was against Houston -- both Petti and O'Hara played in that game. The Philly game in December was the only time 2 guys were out at the same time (O'Hara and Petti) - the protection might not have been great but he actually got sacked a lot less after Pettigout went out. Sure, they had trouble finding an LT but the entire line certainly wasn't hurt.

I think Sarge has it right. Dallas struggled some offensively late in the season as well. I believe that injuries play a big role down the stretch because everyone is nicked up while most of the injuries are unreported. One of the major reasons Philadelphia did so well was their depth on the OL and DL meant they had fresher players. The lack of OL depth did impact Manning's play....just as it did Romo.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
lspain1;1546517 said:
I think Sarge has it right. Dallas struggled some offensively late in the season as well. I believe that injuries play a big role down the stretch because everyone is nicked up while most of the injuries are unreported. One of the major reasons Philadelphia did so well was their depth on the OL and DL meant they had fresher players. The lack of OL depth did impact Manning's play....just as it did Romo.

Every team's players are nicked up. That's no excuse because it will be that way every season.

We didn't have a single OL player miss time and you can count on one hand the times that backups had to come in -- I can't recall anyone aside from Al Johnson ever come into a game. If Romo struggled because the line was hurting a tiny bit then I don't look forward to this year where we are bound to see at least a few missed games from the starters.

We were just as healthy as Philly on the OL. Are they deeper? Sure. But guys like Justice and Max Jean-Gilles didn't dress for a single game -- so that sort of depth didn't mean much.
 
Top