help wanted

Danzig · #1 09-29-2008, 09:10 AM

seeking a head coach to fill vacancy. previous experience a plus. salary commensurate with experience.

st. louis rams

ddthetide · #2 09-29-2008, 11:16 AM

which job is worse the Raiders or Rams? the rams are a bad team but the working conditions in oakland must be awful and they are a bad team.

MaTH716 · #3 09-29-2008, 11:29 AM

I really had no opinion on the whole Raiders situation. I am actually kind of against firing Kiffen this early into the season with the cast he has. But the fact he sent Janiskowski out there to kick a 76 yards FG has made me re-think the situation.

Danzig · #4 09-29-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddthetide

which job is worse the Raiders or Rams? the rams are a bad team but the working conditions in oakland must be awful and they are a bad team.

i'd say raiders.
haslett named interim coach for the rams.

jwkniska · #5 09-29-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'd say raiders.
haslett named interim coach for the rams.

I agree. At least in STL, you don't have to put up with Al Davis.

dalakhani · #6 09-29-2008, 02:42 PM

I think the Raiders can be better faster. The rams are a complete rebuild that might get closer to "average" faster but a long, long way from being good.

The Raiders have a young QB, a potentially franchise RB behind a young and improving line.

On the defensive side, they have a ball hawking secondary and a defense that can make plays.

St Louis has an aging line and a QB that has seen his better days. If I were them, I would consider trading Jackson for a package. He is the only one still worth anything. Holt is still good but at his age you wouldnt get much in the way of a trade.

GPK · #7 09-29-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think the Raiders can be better faster. The rams are a complete rebuild that might get closer to "average" faster but a long, long way from being good.

The Raiders have a young QB, a potentially franchise RB behind a young and improving line.

On the defensive side, they have a ball hawking secondary and a defense that can make plays.

St Louis has an aging line and a QB that has seen his better days. If I were them, I would consider trading Jackson for a package. He is the only one still worth anything. Holt is still good but at his age you wouldnt get much in the way of a trade.

Green or Bulger?

dalakhani · #8 09-29-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPK

Green or Bulger?

Both. Green is just flat done. Bulger is 31 and has gotten killed behind that line over the last couple of seasons. I think he can still be a decent NFL QB but he won't have the years he had a few years back. I would say to trade him but you can't get any value for him (maybe a midround?).

What do you think?

SniperSB23 · #9 09-29-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Both. Green is just flat done. Bulger is 31 and has gotten killed behind that line over the last couple of seasons. I think he can still be a decent NFL QB but he won't have the years he had a few years back. I would say to trade him but you can't get any value for him (maybe a midround?).

What do you think?

Bulger can still be effective, they need to repair the line before anyone is taking them anywhere though. Green needs to get out of there quick. He is a mortality waiting to happen behind that line.

Danzig · #10 09-29-2008, 04:04 PM

nothing wrong with bulger. he'd have more trade value at that age than a running back-31 isn't exactly old for a QB. but regardless of his talent level, he won't do squat without an O-line to give him time in the pocket. he's one of the few bright spots on an otherwise horrid team. the decision to bench him is probably what cost that coach his job. you don't give a guy a contract like that and then hand him headphones. it was a bonehead move. but while they're firing, they need to look at the gm as well.

GPK · #11 09-29-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Both. Green is just flat done. Bulger is 31 and has gotten killed behind that line over the last couple of seasons. I think he can still be a decent NFL QB but he won't have the years he had a few years back. I would say to trade him but you can't get any value for him (maybe a midround?).

What do you think?

Obviously alot depends on his past shoulder issues...but the overall state of that Rams team makes it virtually impossible for any QB to be succesful. I think he has a few good years left in him...just would like to see it with a different team.

declansharbor · #12 09-29-2008, 05:45 PM

The Rams have arguably the worst defense in the game. This is the main root(one of many roots with Oline not far behind) of the problem. Vince Lombardi couldnt even make a difference with the talent Linehan had. Their coverage in secondary is atrocious. They picked up one piece of the puzzle in Chris Long, and will probably focus the next few drafts and offseasons on Oline and defensive help. It all starts up front. (something I never believed in until about 5 years ago) If they don't find the 'stop-gaps' soon, expect a carousel of head coaches to be shown the exit doors in the upcoming years.

dalakhani · #13 09-29-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

nothing wrong with bulger. he'd have more trade value at that age than a running back-31 isn't exactly old for a QB. but regardless of his talent level, he won't do squat without an O-line to give him time in the pocket. he's one of the few bright spots on an otherwise horrid team. the decision to bench him is probably what cost that coach his job. you don't give a guy a contract like that and then hand him headphones. it was a bonehead move. but while they're firing, they need to look at the gm as well.

More trade value would be any trade value because a 31 year old running back has virtually zero.

Bulger is a decent QB. No doubt about it. But at 31 and being a few years away from his better seasons (regardless of blame) he would command a midround draft pick at best. No one is going to give up a high pick and then have to deal with his contract for a guy that was good but not great and has health questions.

The one with the trade value is Stephen Jackson. You could get a high draft pick and or player(s) for a stud like Jackson that is still in his prime.

#14 09-29-2008, 06:06 PM

I agree. They need to trade Jackson. RB's are expendable and his value is ridiculously high right now. Plus he's injury prone and a sissy.

Danzig · #15 09-29-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

More trade value would be any trade value because a 31 year old running back has virtually zero.

Bulger is a decent QB. No doubt about it. But at 31 and being a few years away from his better seasons (regardless of blame) he would command a midround draft pick at best. No one is going to give up a high pick and then have to deal with his contract for a guy that was good but not great and has health questions.

The one with the trade value is Stephen Jackson. You could get a high draft pick and or player(s) for a stud like Jackson that is still in his prime.

i think you're right, pants as well. deal what they can to add what they need-but they need far more than they can get for one RB. basically the rams need to face facts-they aren't going to do anything this year-and maybe not next year, so they need to plan for the next few years. it's why i said the gm merited a long look as well, as it's generally the gm who takes care of personnel/draft/trading, etc-not the coach. seems like he was doing everything but paying attention to what holes to fill, etc. and why they ate up a lot of their salary cap for bulger i don't know.

rams were good not that long ago, how they ended up in this spot i don't know...but then, i don't pay much attention to the rams!