February 16, 2010
Once upon a time, Bulger was a very solid quarterback, but over the last three years, his performance has been in line with what you'd expect from any other Ram. Over the past three years, his quarterback rating has hovered around 70, and in those three years, the Rams have won a total of six games.
In the three years before that, Bulger's passer rating was around 90, and the Rams won 22 games.
So here's the important question, as it relates to Bulger's potential value as a free agent: Which caused which? Did the Rams get worse because Bulger wasn't playing well, or did Bulger get worse because the Rams surrounded him with a roster that shouldn't even be allowed to watch the playoffs on television?
It's not cut and dry either way, but I'd lean towards the latter. If there had been a great quarterback in St. Louis at any point over the last three years, would anyone have been able to tell? We're talking about five coaches in the last five years, an offensive line that was shockingly bad at times, and a roster that, outside of Steven Jackson, is more UFL than NFL.
So who knows what Bulger really brings to the table? In what will likely be a very thin crop of unrestricted free agent quarterbacks, Bulger becomes an interesting option.
Gracias, Pro Football Talk.
Posted Jul 2 2012
Posted Jul 3 2012
Posted Jun 21 2012