Lavar waived, Isaac cut...
- Thread starter Fucky McFuckerson
- Start date
Bruce only had over 1200 revieving yards in 2004 and got hurt for 5 games in 2005...still had nearly 600 yeard..thats not production????Cmon now...
You gotta remember they also put Stephen Jackson into full motion last year...so maybe the Rams see themselvs in a different type of offense...just a LITTLE....next year...
You gotta remember they also put Stephen Jackson into full motion last year...so maybe the Rams see themselvs in a different type of offense...just a LITTLE....next year...
Last three years he has been second 2 Holt and even third to faulk/jackson...he is on the downward of his career and Curtis and McDonald are 6 and 9 years younger with same production as Bruce has had. In fact if it wasn't for Curtis they would have lost a couple of thier wins last year.
Now don't get me wrong Bruce was the man when it was Faulk bruce and Holt in that order, but now Bruce can easily fall to 4th look on the offense if he stays.
Out of respect for a player like that wouldn't you rather see him go somewhere and try to be #2?
I said Faulk because he was second to faulk 3 and 2 years ago.
next year he will be 4th and sometimes 5th look
1)Jackson
2)holt
3)Curtis
4)bruce
5)mcdonald
I am sorry if you cannot see this, but there is no way in hell Bruce is option1 or 2 over holt and jackson, and Curtis played balls out last year and is and will be #3 over bruce.
I am not trying to take anything away from what bruce has accomplished, but with what is on that team he is not an option at the price tag he was going to cost them...
that my friend is not horrible nor inaccurate!
next year he will be 4th and sometimes 5th look
1)Jackson
2)holt
3)Curtis
4)bruce
5)mcdonald
I am sorry if you cannot see this, but there is no way in hell Bruce is option1 or 2 over holt and jackson, and Curtis played balls out last year and is and will be #3 over bruce.
I am not trying to take anything away from what bruce has accomplished, but with what is on that team he is not an option at the price tag he was going to cost them...
that my friend is not horrible nor inaccurate!
I just read this
The 33-year-old Bruce had a salary cap figure of $10 million for next season. He was due a $1.5 million roster bonus Monday, the first day of the free agency period, as part of an $8.1 million salary. But the opening of free agency has been delayed for three more days.
Bruce was entering the final year of a seven-year, $42 million contract he signed in 2000.
The Rams reportedly offered a three-year deal worth about $9 million, including a $5 million contract in the first season."
He is not worth 10 mil plus 1.5 bonus (11.5 total)
now 5 mil I would have no prob with and then 2 years at 2 mil apiece that is feasible with age and whatelse they have.
now this I didn't know either.
"The Rams have only two wide receivers under contract, Torry Holt and Dane Looker. Kevin Curtis and Shaun McDonald are restricted free agents."
you don't think they will take that 6 mil in savings and resign both of them with that?
The 33-year-old Bruce had a salary cap figure of $10 million for next season. He was due a $1.5 million roster bonus Monday, the first day of the free agency period, as part of an $8.1 million salary. But the opening of free agency has been delayed for three more days.
Bruce was entering the final year of a seven-year, $42 million contract he signed in 2000.
The Rams reportedly offered a three-year deal worth about $9 million, including a $5 million contract in the first season."
He is not worth 10 mil plus 1.5 bonus (11.5 total)
now 5 mil I would have no prob with and then 2 years at 2 mil apiece that is feasible with age and whatelse they have.
now this I didn't know either.
"The Rams have only two wide receivers under contract, Torry Holt and Dane Looker. Kevin Curtis and Shaun McDonald are restricted free agents."
you don't think they will take that 6 mil in savings and resign both of them with that?
Huh???Who are you watching???Faulk in 2004...
RUSHING:
14 games 195 carries 774 yds 4.0 avg 3 TD's
RECIEVING:
14 games 50 catches 310 yds 6.2 ypc 1 TD
Faulk in 2003..
RUSHING:
11 games 209 carries 818 yds 3.9 avg 10 TD's
RECIEVING:
11 games 45 catches 290 yds 6.4 ypc 1 TD
NOW...Bruce in 2003(i already posted his 2004 numbers)
RECIEVING:
15 games 69 catches 981 yds 14.2 ypc 5 TD's
Now...Faulkl would AONLY be BEFORE Bruce in a play if a)hes RUNNING THE BALL...he is a RB for christ sakes...or b)if it was a designed screen...
So how the fuck are you gonna tell me he was 4th in the offenseive scheme???
YOU DONT COUNT RUNNING BACKS...cmon guy thats apples and oranges beef...2 different positons....running plays..are designed for RUNNING BACKS..unless its a reverse...PAASING PLAYS are designed MAINLY for WR/TE...and of course a few to your FB/RB...
What makes you think Curtis will be before Bruce?Do you have inside info???Cmon bro...no one knows that for sure...thats just pullin shit out of your ass...no pun intended...
Like i said..YOU DONT COUNT RB'S IN A PASSING PLAY...so as a WIDEOUT...Bruce WOULD HAVE BEEN...2...like hes been for years...
Actually...you ARE taking away his accomplishments....and i understand he wanted or was owed too much...but thats what happens when your a Pro Bowler and an exceptional reciever in the NFL....
I beg to differ...but whatever...i know im right and i have a feeling you do to...
Lets move on shall we....
RUSHING:
14 games 195 carries 774 yds 4.0 avg 3 TD's
RECIEVING:
14 games 50 catches 310 yds 6.2 ypc 1 TD
Faulk in 2003..
RUSHING:
11 games 209 carries 818 yds 3.9 avg 10 TD's
RECIEVING:
11 games 45 catches 290 yds 6.4 ypc 1 TD
NOW...Bruce in 2003(i already posted his 2004 numbers)
RECIEVING:
15 games 69 catches 981 yds 14.2 ypc 5 TD's
Now...Faulkl would AONLY be BEFORE Bruce in a play if a)hes RUNNING THE BALL...he is a RB for christ sakes...or b)if it was a designed screen...
So how the fuck are you gonna tell me he was 4th in the offenseive scheme???
YOU DONT COUNT RUNNING BACKS...cmon guy thats apples and oranges beef...2 different positons....running plays..are designed for RUNNING BACKS..unless its a reverse...PAASING PLAYS are designed MAINLY for WR/TE...and of course a few to your FB/RB...
What makes you think Curtis will be before Bruce?Do you have inside info???Cmon bro...no one knows that for sure...thats just pullin shit out of your ass...no pun intended...
Like i said..YOU DONT COUNT RB'S IN A PASSING PLAY...so as a WIDEOUT...Bruce WOULD HAVE BEEN...2...like hes been for years...
Actually...you ARE taking away his accomplishments....and i understand he wanted or was owed too much...but thats what happens when your a Pro Bowler and an exceptional reciever in the NFL....
I beg to differ...but whatever...i know im right and i have a feeling you do to...
Lets move on shall we....
I am not countng 2004...read what I wrote 2 and 3 years ago....and I am not talking pass catching option...I am talking overall offense option...the run comes first so Jackson is option #1
even in your example..faulk got tons of screen from the backfield when he was the man...but you mean to tell me Bruce was the #1 offense weapon on those teams with warner faulk bruce and holt???? wow!
But I guess thats right when Faulk was consensus #1 in every fantasy league where as Bruce would fall into 3rd round or later....but fantasy is only based off of stats which is exactly what we are talking...BTW
and oh yeah is it really apples and oranges comparing a rb and wr in recieving categories??
go look at bruces 2 best year 1995 & 1999....now look at faulks 1999 receiving stats..wow what stands out to you...faulk more td's...reciving than Bruce...add another 7 tds rushing and almost 1400 yards rushing and what do you have??? THE #1 OPTION ON THE TEAM THAT YEAR!!!!!
Now what makes me think Curtis would be an option before Bruce..lets see how about 4 td's over 40 yards with 1 of those over 80 yards...Curtis is younger faster and most importantly CHEAPER!
he said this year bruce would be 4th option. he didn't say he was 4th option 2-3 years ago. but im gonna have to agree with him bruce will be mostly likely be the 4th option unless he reproves himself in training camp cuze if i remember right kevin curtis had a break out year last year. and when i say a 4th option im including s.jackson in that in my opinoin it'll be 1. S.Jack 2. Holt 3. Curtis 4. Bruce(if he's back) 5.McDz
ok oh coy, I have sat back thought a little more about this and said hey I will go to a Rams message board as why sould a Broncos fan be arguing over a decliong Rams player.
So I found the most active rams board so far (this was hard they have some pretty inactive boards, rams fans must not be that great of fans)...and here is what the say.
http://www.clanram.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15898
post 14 and 16 says it all.....for the most part they agree with me..8-10mil too much 5 mil more tha enough. Now there are are a coupe of backers for him as well, but like I said, and most Rams fans are saying as well...he wanted too much and they are not sorry to see him go if he wants that muc (and is turning down 5 mil)
I like most of your posts and I'm sorry we disagree here but I think you will see there will not be too many teams lining up to pay him more than what the Rams offered.
So I found the most active rams board so far (this was hard they have some pretty inactive boards, rams fans must not be that great of fans)...and here is what the say.
http://www.clanram.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15898
post 14 and 16 says it all.....for the most part they agree with me..8-10mil too much 5 mil more tha enough. Now there are are a coupe of backers for him as well, but like I said, and most Rams fans are saying as well...he wanted too much and they are not sorry to see him go if he wants that muc (and is turning down 5 mil)
I like most of your posts and I'm sorry we disagree here but I think you will see there will not be too many teams lining up to pay him more than what the Rams offered.
To me thats irrelevent..cus that knocks him down if you count running plays...no sense in doing that...
Passing wise...Bruce/Holt were interchangable...if YOU dont know that...then you OBVIOULSY never WATCHED a STL game no have you...my roomie is a STL NUT...we watched damn near every game for the last 7 freakin years with the NFL package...
And?Of course a RB who CATHCES AND RUNS will go ahead of just a RECIEVING WR...cmon bro you gotta do better than that...those are COMMON SENSE statements...even I know that...but we are talkin WR OPTIONS IN A PASSING PLAY...so cut the crap...
Wow...i cant beleive you just asked that..should i even carry this debate on???LOL...
Did i EVER...ONCE....say that Bruce was MORE valuable then Faulk in ANY of this????No...we aint talkin about value between a RB/WR...we are talking about Bruce as a reciever....and how GOOD he is and how VALUABLE he is as a WR in the scheme of things...dont twist my words around...
And he only scored 3 more TD in 5 more games played than Bruce in...your point being?
All im sayin is...if it WASNT a salary cap issue...would they still release him?Thats the WHOLE point of this breakdown...
Bruce,Holt and Faulk all had a hand in being the Greatest Show On Turf...they all contributed...i believe that Faulk has ALWAYS been STL's best weapon...but hes DONE...Stephen is now the main back..im surprised they dont cut Faulk...cus hes just gonna colect dust over there in the sidelines...
Bruce is ONLY 33....Rice played until he was 43(im not sayin Bruce is on the same level as Rice, but understand what im saying)....you do the math....
Passing wise...Bruce/Holt were interchangable...if YOU dont know that...then you OBVIOULSY never WATCHED a STL game no have you...my roomie is a STL NUT...we watched damn near every game for the last 7 freakin years with the NFL package...
And?Of course a RB who CATHCES AND RUNS will go ahead of just a RECIEVING WR...cmon bro you gotta do better than that...those are COMMON SENSE statements...even I know that...but we are talkin WR OPTIONS IN A PASSING PLAY...so cut the crap...
Wow...i cant beleive you just asked that..should i even carry this debate on???LOL...
Did i EVER...ONCE....say that Bruce was MORE valuable then Faulk in ANY of this????No...we aint talkin about value between a RB/WR...we are talking about Bruce as a reciever....and how GOOD he is and how VALUABLE he is as a WR in the scheme of things...dont twist my words around...
And he only scored 3 more TD in 5 more games played than Bruce in...your point being?
All im sayin is...if it WASNT a salary cap issue...would they still release him?Thats the WHOLE point of this breakdown...
Bruce,Holt and Faulk all had a hand in being the Greatest Show On Turf...they all contributed...i believe that Faulk has ALWAYS been STL's best weapon...but hes DONE...Stephen is now the main back..im surprised they dont cut Faulk...cus hes just gonna colect dust over there in the sidelines...
Bruce is ONLY 33....Rice played until he was 43(im not sayin Bruce is on the same level as Rice, but understand what im saying)....you do the math....