- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Ram Bytes: What's the plan for a No. 2 QB?
• Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_ca197887-5a9e-531f-994d-c9dfcf6a4115.html
I wasn't surprised to see Kellen Clemens draw interest on the free-agent market, and on Thursday he agreed to terms with San Diego on a two-year deal for $3 million.
All things considered, Clemens did a solid job for the 2013 Rams in his nine starts after Sam Bradford was lost to a knee injury. Given the Rams' midstream change in style and the shift to a big emphasis on the running game, I don't know that Clemens' stats have much relevancy.
In his nine starts Clemens completed 59 percent of his throws with eight touchdowns, seven interceptions and a decent passer rating of 79.0. The Rams went 4-5 in his starts, and that included impressive wins over Indianapolis, New Orleans and Chicago.
Bradford's critics liked to point to those wins as evidence of Clemens being a “winner” in comparison to Bradford. Sure. Just completely disregard the fact that the Rams rushed 100 times for 542 yards and five touchdowns and forced 11 turnovers in those three Ws. Clemens played well, but he wasn't anywhere near the top of the list when assigning credit for the three upsets.
Perhaps more on point was Clemens' four starts against NFC West teams in 2013:
Completion rate: 57 %
Yards Per Attempt: 5.71
Touchdowns: 2
Interceptions: 7
Passer Rating: 55.2
Record: 0-4.
From 2012 until the time he was injured last year, the Rams had a 5-2-1 record when Bradford started against NFC West rivals. He was terrific in several games, mediocre in some, and was brutally bad in the home loss to San Francisco last season. But Bradford showed he could make plays against three outstanding defenses, throwing 10 touchdown passes and connecting for 14 completions of 25 or more yards.
But I don't want to dog Clemens here. He actually played much better than I anticipated. And more than that, Rams players respected him and trusted him. Unless it's a situation where a Steve Young is backing up a Joe Montana, it's unrealistic to expect your No. 2 guy to be a real impact guy. What you realistically hope is that the No. 2 steps in, handles the emergency with poise, makes the plays that are there, minimizes his mistakes and does his part to secure victories in games that are winnable.
And for the most part, Clemens did that. Not always; the home loss to Seattle last season was an example of Clemens failing to make a play when the Rams had the Seahawks vulnerable to a knockout punch. But Clemens did a fine job, and then some, because this could have been a disaster. Granted, the Rams didn't ask a lot of him; Clemens took over an offense that had been redesigned to gear up for the run. But he ran that offense effectively, and limited the damage. And for the realists among us, that's pretty much all you can ask a No. 2 to do – at least most of them, anyway.
That's why ESPN's Bill Polian – one of the greatest general managers in NFL history – gave Clemens a B minus rating when assessing the quarterbacks before the opening of free agency. Polian had Clemens as his top QB on the free agent list, rating him higher than Michael Vick, Josh McCown, Matt Cassel and others. I don't think I agree with that, but I certainly expect Polian and his opinions.
Polian wrote, “Clemens filled in capably when starter Sam Bradford was injured. There's no starting potential given his skill set, but he can be a reasonably good backup.”
Given the relative quality of Clemens' performance in an emergency scenario, it raises the question: Did the Rams make a mistake here by not re-signing him? The Chargers didn't exactly overwhelm Clemens financially.
I think this makes for a good debate. My friend Nick Wagoner, who covers the Rams for ESPN.com, made a case for keeping Clemens. And I agree with much of what Wagoner said.
I would have been good with keeping Clemens around, but what really matters to me is what the Rams do next. This is a sensitive time for the Rams and the QB position. Bradford has been their starter for four seasons, but has made it through only two of the four without being struck down or compromised by injuries.
Though the Rams appear to be in denial, Bradford's durability is an issue. So it makes sense to have a veteran No. 2 that can bring reasonable stability to a crisis, as Clemens did last season. If the Rams don't sign a veteran backup, then what?
Two obvious options:
1. Make Austin Davis the No. 2, and don't fret over his inexperience. Davis has been on the Rams' roster for much of the last two years, and he's never played in a regular-season NFL game. Do the coaches trust Davis to take over if needed? I don't know. After all, they cut Davis last summer only to call him back when Bradford fell. If you have a strong positive feeling about a young QB, you don't cut him. You keep him to develop him.
2. Draft a quarterback in May. GM Les Snead has expressed a desire to do that, but is it a priority? Do the Rams do something aggressive, like taking a QB in the second or third round? Or do they wait for the middle/late rounds? Only they can answer that. It depends on their level of enthusiasm for a particular prospect.
We can certainly lay out the reasoning for making it a priority. Bradford has two seasons left on his massive rookie-year contract. If he flops or is hurt again in 2014, Sam could be a cap casualty before 2015. One way or another, the Rams soon will face a major decision at a vital position.
If they plan to stay with Bradford come landfill hell or high water in Earth City -- and enrich him with another contract -- then developing a prospect at the No. 2 spot is less of a priority. But if the Rams decide to cut ties with Bradford, they'll need someone to be ready to take over soon ... and take on those punishing defenses in Seattle, San Francisco and Arizona.
Would the Rams be insane or irresponsible to go with an untested No. 2 quarterback in 2014? Not really. Some postseason contenders have veteran backups, but a few of the better NFL teams have inexperienced No. 2 quarterbacks.
Ryan Mallet (four career passing attempts) backs up Tom Brady in New England. Brock Osweiler (20 career attempts) backs up Peyton Manning in Denver. It's also true that some of the more successful teams have lived – or are living – dangerously with what they have at No. 2. Think of Green Bay in 2013. There's no sure way to go about this; NFL teams are all over the place in their philosophies on No. 2s.
I come down on it this way:
If the Rams are truly excited by a QB prospect and are confident that he can quickly develop into a starter, then take the gamble and hope that Bradford can stay healthy.
Besides, this isn't the most progressive offense under head coach Jeff Fisher and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. It's not as if the Rams are asking their quarterback to dominate games. As long as the guy is good at executing handoffs to Zac Stacy, he's already on track to winning the starting gig for a staff that likes 1960s offense.
But if the Rams aren't going to use the Clemens departure as an opportunity to install a potential or probable future starter, then they should have kept Clemens. That way, they wouldn't have to use an early-round pick on a quarterback. They could use the pick to plug another roster hole.
Thanks for reading …
— Bernie
• Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_ca197887-5a9e-531f-994d-c9dfcf6a4115.html
I wasn't surprised to see Kellen Clemens draw interest on the free-agent market, and on Thursday he agreed to terms with San Diego on a two-year deal for $3 million.
All things considered, Clemens did a solid job for the 2013 Rams in his nine starts after Sam Bradford was lost to a knee injury. Given the Rams' midstream change in style and the shift to a big emphasis on the running game, I don't know that Clemens' stats have much relevancy.
In his nine starts Clemens completed 59 percent of his throws with eight touchdowns, seven interceptions and a decent passer rating of 79.0. The Rams went 4-5 in his starts, and that included impressive wins over Indianapolis, New Orleans and Chicago.
Bradford's critics liked to point to those wins as evidence of Clemens being a “winner” in comparison to Bradford. Sure. Just completely disregard the fact that the Rams rushed 100 times for 542 yards and five touchdowns and forced 11 turnovers in those three Ws. Clemens played well, but he wasn't anywhere near the top of the list when assigning credit for the three upsets.
Perhaps more on point was Clemens' four starts against NFC West teams in 2013:
Completion rate: 57 %
Yards Per Attempt: 5.71
Touchdowns: 2
Interceptions: 7
Passer Rating: 55.2
Record: 0-4.
From 2012 until the time he was injured last year, the Rams had a 5-2-1 record when Bradford started against NFC West rivals. He was terrific in several games, mediocre in some, and was brutally bad in the home loss to San Francisco last season. But Bradford showed he could make plays against three outstanding defenses, throwing 10 touchdown passes and connecting for 14 completions of 25 or more yards.
But I don't want to dog Clemens here. He actually played much better than I anticipated. And more than that, Rams players respected him and trusted him. Unless it's a situation where a Steve Young is backing up a Joe Montana, it's unrealistic to expect your No. 2 guy to be a real impact guy. What you realistically hope is that the No. 2 steps in, handles the emergency with poise, makes the plays that are there, minimizes his mistakes and does his part to secure victories in games that are winnable.
And for the most part, Clemens did that. Not always; the home loss to Seattle last season was an example of Clemens failing to make a play when the Rams had the Seahawks vulnerable to a knockout punch. But Clemens did a fine job, and then some, because this could have been a disaster. Granted, the Rams didn't ask a lot of him; Clemens took over an offense that had been redesigned to gear up for the run. But he ran that offense effectively, and limited the damage. And for the realists among us, that's pretty much all you can ask a No. 2 to do – at least most of them, anyway.
That's why ESPN's Bill Polian – one of the greatest general managers in NFL history – gave Clemens a B minus rating when assessing the quarterbacks before the opening of free agency. Polian had Clemens as his top QB on the free agent list, rating him higher than Michael Vick, Josh McCown, Matt Cassel and others. I don't think I agree with that, but I certainly expect Polian and his opinions.
Polian wrote, “Clemens filled in capably when starter Sam Bradford was injured. There's no starting potential given his skill set, but he can be a reasonably good backup.”
Given the relative quality of Clemens' performance in an emergency scenario, it raises the question: Did the Rams make a mistake here by not re-signing him? The Chargers didn't exactly overwhelm Clemens financially.
I think this makes for a good debate. My friend Nick Wagoner, who covers the Rams for ESPN.com, made a case for keeping Clemens. And I agree with much of what Wagoner said.
I would have been good with keeping Clemens around, but what really matters to me is what the Rams do next. This is a sensitive time for the Rams and the QB position. Bradford has been their starter for four seasons, but has made it through only two of the four without being struck down or compromised by injuries.
Though the Rams appear to be in denial, Bradford's durability is an issue. So it makes sense to have a veteran No. 2 that can bring reasonable stability to a crisis, as Clemens did last season. If the Rams don't sign a veteran backup, then what?
Two obvious options:
1. Make Austin Davis the No. 2, and don't fret over his inexperience. Davis has been on the Rams' roster for much of the last two years, and he's never played in a regular-season NFL game. Do the coaches trust Davis to take over if needed? I don't know. After all, they cut Davis last summer only to call him back when Bradford fell. If you have a strong positive feeling about a young QB, you don't cut him. You keep him to develop him.
2. Draft a quarterback in May. GM Les Snead has expressed a desire to do that, but is it a priority? Do the Rams do something aggressive, like taking a QB in the second or third round? Or do they wait for the middle/late rounds? Only they can answer that. It depends on their level of enthusiasm for a particular prospect.
We can certainly lay out the reasoning for making it a priority. Bradford has two seasons left on his massive rookie-year contract. If he flops or is hurt again in 2014, Sam could be a cap casualty before 2015. One way or another, the Rams soon will face a major decision at a vital position.
If they plan to stay with Bradford come landfill hell or high water in Earth City -- and enrich him with another contract -- then developing a prospect at the No. 2 spot is less of a priority. But if the Rams decide to cut ties with Bradford, they'll need someone to be ready to take over soon ... and take on those punishing defenses in Seattle, San Francisco and Arizona.
Would the Rams be insane or irresponsible to go with an untested No. 2 quarterback in 2014? Not really. Some postseason contenders have veteran backups, but a few of the better NFL teams have inexperienced No. 2 quarterbacks.
Ryan Mallet (four career passing attempts) backs up Tom Brady in New England. Brock Osweiler (20 career attempts) backs up Peyton Manning in Denver. It's also true that some of the more successful teams have lived – or are living – dangerously with what they have at No. 2. Think of Green Bay in 2013. There's no sure way to go about this; NFL teams are all over the place in their philosophies on No. 2s.
I come down on it this way:
If the Rams are truly excited by a QB prospect and are confident that he can quickly develop into a starter, then take the gamble and hope that Bradford can stay healthy.
Besides, this isn't the most progressive offense under head coach Jeff Fisher and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. It's not as if the Rams are asking their quarterback to dominate games. As long as the guy is good at executing handoffs to Zac Stacy, he's already on track to winning the starting gig for a staff that likes 1960s offense.
But if the Rams aren't going to use the Clemens departure as an opportunity to install a potential or probable future starter, then they should have kept Clemens. That way, they wouldn't have to use an early-round pick on a quarterback. They could use the pick to plug another roster hole.
Thanks for reading …
— Bernie
