Defending Bulger

I don’t know why, but I’m a big supporter and defender of Marc Bulger. I’m sure most of you on here already knew that, but for some reason it took seeing the title of this post for me to fully realize it. And the thing is, I don’t know why.

It goes back to the Warner/Bulger days when Warner was a broken mess yet still St. Louis’ darling. I fully supported and (if only there had been a TST for me to help my message be heard) told everyone who would listen why Bulger was the better option.

And I know there are plenty here who feel we need to see Trent Green start another game (because the first one was so impressive) or even Brock Berlin. Ultimately though, it comes down to that last section of VanRam’s post….the offensive line. Well, and Jackson needs to get healthy, but that’s a lesser priority in this mess. Without an offensive line, no quarterback will succeed. And by saying “without an offensive line”, that’s exactly what this has become. They’re playing like there’s only 4 guys out there blocking (and maybe that’s the problem………..center).

So, I guess if it makes you feel better, continue to call for the backups (those of you who feel that way) but I truly wonder why you think it’ll make a difference. A lot of the players on this team don’t give a shit and simply because you change the quarterback isn’t going to make Leckey block someone or Barron remember the snap count or make Pace get younger or help Holt to figure out how to get open again or make one of our tight ends learn to catch or block. And that doesn’t even address the defense.

I always found that debate silly. Warner was clearly hampered and was no longer the best option — after he broke his hand, there were two years where he simply couldn’t play the position. Looking at the situation dispassionately, Bulger was the clear choice. And he did well with his opportunity.

Now, Kurt Warner is a red herring. The debate is Bulger vs. Bulger. He simply isn’t the same quarterback as he was. While there’s nothing wrong with saying that the Rams need more playmakers, and need a better offensive line, Bulger is already toast. You can’t fix what’s wrong with him, any more than you could take away Jim Everett’s happy feet in his last years as Rams QB.

The simple truth is that the Rams have never had a strong, cohesive offensive line since moving to St. Louis. Arguing that that’s what’s missing from Bulger’s past success is simply false. We had Pace playing at a high level for four years, and some guys who were occasionally adequate next to him. But our quarterbacks have always faced pressure up the gut, from Bulger now all the way back to Tony Banks. Our running backs have never benefited from wide open rushing lanes — our only successful back in the past 15 years has been Faulk, who created his own space by being a two-way threat. Success in the Rams’ passing game came from a quarterback’s quick release, and getting speedy receivers into the defensive backfield — not from an indomitable wall of protection.

Defending Bulger is fine if you like lost causes. I won’t do it any more.

If we had a better option in house, I’d be calling for him. But we don’t, so all I can do is grouse like a bitter old man, and wish that someone could come along and re-light the fire under his ass. I’ll shut up now and pour myself a bourbon.