Case Keenum is going to ruin Todd Gurley who will ruin Sam Bradford

[dieterbrock]

But you know, there is "Film" of Chase Daniel, showing how good he is. All 77 career pass attempts, since 2009. He looked great, that's why he was in huge demand as a starter. Of course, his attempts came when defenses were expecting another QB than him, and hadn't prepared - but still. There's preseason! against 2nd/3rd string players some of whom actually made the roster! How can you doubt the Chase?

Man, I remember cheering for Brock Berlin & Thad Lewis too

 

[-X-]

Why does it matter? Because there will be games where more is needed. We need someone who can rise to the occasion. I don't believe Keenum can. That is why it matters to me. It's a problem if he can't be relied on to take over games when we need it.

Against a team that allowed 14 passing TDs on the entire year (7/8ths of a TD given up per game)? And again, why did he need to "take over the game" when they won on a balanced offense, and defense? Against Tampa they needed more out of him, so he threw for 234 and 2 TDs for a 158 QB Rating. That's the game where Gurley was held to 48 yards on 21 carries. Remember. We're talking about his first starts in the Rams' system too.

You know what a cool response to that would be?

"Yeah, he can get the job done, and he doesn't look horrible. But I prefer we get a guy who has the potential to be the next great QB of our time. I like Case, but I don't like what I feel are his limitations."

Instead of,

"No. He's not good enough."

 

[Zaphod]

Which leads to a logical conclusion: either it doesn't matter who the Rams trot out at QB, or none of them are good enough. IMO, if you are fine with Keenum going into the year, you should be fine with Austin Davis...or Foles. They're both young too.

While I agree with the conclusion that there was unlikely to be any difference in outcome between Keenum and any of the other quarterbacks we've fielded, it's derivation from contradiction is almost a contradiction on it's own when you state that the record for a quarterback is meaningless, which I guess was on purpose?

Anyway, I think you're absolutely right. Keenum, or any other quarterback wouldn't have made a difference in those two games. And I know you've already stated, fine Case is better than Foles. But if you or anyone else giving up on the season if Keenum starts, it's looking pretty grim. Because even if management drafts a quarterback, which I think is likely even if he's not a fan favorite, I think it's conversely unlikely that the drafted quarterback starts to begin the season.

Basically, in my mind we didn't sign Foles or Keenum's replacement as the veteran option to start the season regardless of who is drafted.

 

[FrantikRam]

You're not disagreeing, you're just not discussing. Both of those games were winnable games, and were closer than the final score indicates. But both games were lost largely in part to horrific play by Foles

I am disagreeing. I'm disagreeing that they were winnable games. I'm disagreeing with you about Keenum.

Our defense got torched in both games. Foles first INT was not a great decision, but it was off of a tip.

In the game against Tampa Bay, Keenum threw what could have been a pick 6, hit the defender right in the numbers, but he dropped it. Thems the breaks.

Which throw was worse? THAT is my point. I'm not comparing Keenum and Foles - Keenum played better last year overall. And I'd rather start Keenum than Foles. You can win games in the NFL in spite of a position - including QB. Sometimes its luck....you have to step back and look objectively at what you think will happen. If you poll everyone on this site, you'd find yourself in a very small minority of people that think we win one of those games with Keenum. Closer? Yes probably. But actually win? No way.

My argument in all of this is that records for a QB are deceiving. I've always thought this. I don't believe Russell Wilson is a historically great QB, but his record thus far would indicate that he is. We're dealing with that on a much smaller and much worse scale. People say Keenum was 3-2 last year - I say he would have been 3-4 had he not gotten hurt. In the 3 wins, the only one he played well enough to be considered a starter was against the Bucs. And that game looked surprisingly similar to this:

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2013/11/11/5090792/kellen-clemens-rams-vs-colts-recap-mr-efficiency

Which backs up my point - he is on the same level as every other QB we've had. Clemens was worse than Keenum, but had one VERY good game - just like Keenum.

People are bringing up the win at Seattle, but I'd use that as a reason for why he isn't starting material - our offense was irrelevant in the 4th quarter. Fisher is conservative, but some of that blame goes to the players as well, and that includes the QB. We need a QB that Fisher feels comfortable throwing the ball in the 4th quarter - right now we don't have that.

 

[Zaphod]

I saw Keenum play in Santa Clara. I was really curious to see how he'd do against an inferior opponent after the stellar (for him) game he had in Seattle.

He was awful, misfiring all over the place. In fairness, he didn't have Gurley, but Cunningham did a good job after replacing Mason.

I saw all I needed to see. Good, backup, not starter material. If the Rams don't draft a QB, I hope they really get Mannion going in OTAs and training camp.

The misfires, the missed opportunities. That game was an eye opener for me for the exact same reason, it seemed like there were plays left out there all over the field.

To me there's no doubt that the coordinator and quarterback change helped out the team considerably when we consider the downward spiral that offense was in. No doubt the offensive play calling improved as they simply integrated our rushing attack so much better, but it's obvious that Keenum missed opportunities that our commitment to running the ball opened up. I don't have a problem with a team centered around a rushing attack, especially when you have a guy like Gurley on your team, holy smokes. But like anything, you have to exploit those opportunities or the defense is going to exploit you.

 

[dieterbrock]

. People say Keenum was 3-2 last year - I say he would have been 3-4 had he not gotten hurt

Well I guess I don't know how to respond because on one hand you say wins are irrelevant and on the other you slap a loss on a QB
I don't buy in to the changing QB, and can just determine same result. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm not supporting Keenum because of the "3-2" record, but the fact is that when he was playing we weren't losing games because of the horrible QB play that Foles was displaying.
Baltimore game was a bad spot, but it did expose his weakness and the Tampa Bay game showed what he could do when given the chance.
So the close games we lost where Foles was bad, Washington, Minnesota and Pittsburgh, I sure would have liked to have seen those games replayed with Keenum at QB. But, we cant.

 

[Faceplant]

For those clamoring on about Keenums lack of attempts. Apart from the already stated fact that they had a pro bowl RB in the backfield, the Rams started at least three rookies at some point this season on the OL. GRob was still as green as guacamole and Barnes was essentially a first time starter as well. What about THAT would inspire a coach to sling the ball 35+ times per game??? Also, what about our WR corp would inspire them to air it out like that??? It wouldn't. It shouldn't.....#becausefisherball

 

[Ram Man]

Also, what about our WR corp would inspire them to air it out like that??? It wouldn't. It shouldn't.....#becausefisherball

To follow that thought up, if we trade up to draft a QB this year and sacrifice significant picks this year, then who will catch the ball for us this year. We did nothing but lose our starting tight end in free agency to improve the problem. Without improving at WR and TE in the draft the Rams will be forced to play with what we have this year. If so, the Rams will field a WORSE group of players at those positions than last year.

 

[Angry Ram]

Yea...less than 4000 yards and 30 TDs. Not a backup QB.

Which fits your parameters.

Film.

LOL OK. YouTube highlights? Games in the preseason on NFL rewind? 32 teams have more access that film than you do. 32 GMs and coaches have not given your boy Chase Daniel a shot to compete. Or even keep a backup job.

I did. My original post states why I chose the Steelers. It's also irrelevant to my point where the playoff teams ranked. Picking a median team is a benchmark for comparison.

OK. You also were trying to say it's important RE pass attempts. And I mentioned it's not as important where that list shows 8/12 playoff teams 16th or lower in attempts. So no, it's not as important as you claim.

No, I use them because I'm obsessed with having a starting caliber QB. There are players that are very obvious upgrades.

Where? And why isn't there a huge rush for them?

You misunderstood the point. Own it and let's move on. It's pretty clear the conversation was about opponent W-L record and I was responding that his opponent W-L record was bolstered by the win at Seattle despite him not producing much in that game.

OK. Either way, it's still you painting him in a negative light. He still won as QB that day right? He still threw a TD pass against a top defense, right? He still didn't turn it over or fumble it away (i.e. Nick Foles), right? That's the way the game went. Deal with it.

 

[FrantikRam]

Well I guess I don't know how to respond because on one hand you say wins are irrelevant and on the other you slap a loss on a QB
I don't buy in to the changing QB, and can just determine same result. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm not supporting Keenum because of the "3-2" record, but the fact is that when he was playing we weren't losing games because of the horrible QB play that Foles was displaying.
Baltimore game was a bad spot, but it did expose his weakness and the Tampa Bay game showed what he could do when given the chance.
So the close games we lost where Foles was bad, Washington, Minnesota and Pittsburgh, I sure would have liked to have seen those games replayed with Keenum at QB. But, we cant.

In "slapping the loss" on Keenum, I'm trying to show that W/L record for a QB is meaningless. It's not solely his fault for losing those games - nor was it solely his play that lead to the wins.

What seemed to be a ton of people were championing his record as a starter - I pointed out that had he not gotten hurt, odds are he's 3-4 and that record would be similar to all the other QBs we've had under Fisher.

We're probably not too far apart on this - Keenum is definitely the best QB on the roster right now. I just think the Rams need to upgrade the position to be a threat.

And again on the Tampa Bay game....that game against the Colts a few years ago showed what Clemens could do.......but then not really. Anyone is capable of having a great game, but factoring in that it only happened once for Keenum, against a bad team, at home on a Thursday night game....well, let's just say all things considered, I was more impressed with Clemen's performance.

 

[Angry Ram]

our offense was irrelevant in the 4th quarter.

Not really.

They had an 11 play (2 from the end of the 3rd), 62 yard methodical drive that took 5 minutes which ended on a TGII TD run, but he didn't run it on all those 11 plays. True a lot of it came on that Benny Cunningham fumble. Hey, shit happens tho. ball: Fuck you, shitchickens.

Some TGII runs chewed up more clock.

Kneel down.

Ball game.

That's how you win games on the road. Against a good defense.

It's not a bad way to win...

 

[Akrasian]

What seemed to be a ton of people were championing his record as a starter - I pointed out that had he not gotten hurt, odds are he's 3-4 and that record would be similar to all the other QBs we've had under Fisher.

I was one of the first to bring it up - but it was in reply to someone, who had brought up his 5-10 overall record as a starter - at which point I pointed out that after his first season where he was 0-8 he had a winning record.

I don't particularly care about won-loss record - too many things outside of the QBs control affect it - but since it was being used as a negative for Case, I used the poster's criterion to show that it was actually a plus now for him - unless you believe that players can never improve.

 

[Alaskan Ram]

I'm in the Suh camp.

 

[dieterbrock]

We're probably not too far apart on this - Keenum is definitely the best QB on the roster right now. I just think the Rams need to upgrade the position to be a threat.

We are way too close on this to keep this semantic debate going... I am hoping/praying they can get Goff/Wentz otherwise I don't see a viable upgrade available in this off season unless Mannion is ready to rock

 

[jrry32]

Which fits your parameters.

No, it doesn't fit my parameters. You don't even know what my parameters are. "I'll settle for less than 4000 yards and 30 TDs" doesn't mean "I'll settle for anything."

I don't even know what point you're making here at this point in time.

LOL OK. YouTube highlights? Games in the preseason on NFL rewind? 32 teams have more access that film than you do. 32 GMs and coaches have not given your boy Chase Daniel a shot to compete. Or even keep a backup job.

Preseason games and his NFL regular season starts. Not sure how the NFL teams have more access to film than I do when I have access to every game he's played the past few years.

They haven't given Daniel a shot to compete or keep a backup job? Are you high? He was the backup in New Orleans for years behind Brees and then was signed to a nice contract with Kansas City and was their backup for the ENTIRETY of that contract. Philadelphia just paid him $7 million a year to join their team.

He's had no issues keeping a backup job and teams actually seem to value him as a backup. I value him as a starter over Case Keenum...because Keenum is a backup caliber QB. I would not value Daniel as a starter over Drew Brees or Alex Smith.(well, maybe Smith...we'll see how Daniel does if he gets an opportunity to start)

OK. You also were trying to say it's important RE pass attempts. And I mentioned it's not as important where that list shows 8/12 playoff teams 16th or lower in attempts. So no, it's not as important as you claim.

I was comparing the median team vs. the Rams for benchmark purposes for statistical analysis. Stop reading things into what I'm saying when those things aren't there.

Where? And why isn't there a huge rush for them?

Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Paxton Lynch
Connor Cook
Brett Hundley
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Mike Glennon

I'd take all of them over Keenum. But Fitzpatrick and Glennon don't have enough long term potential for me to dish out the assets to acquire them.

OK. Either way, it's still you painting him in a negative light. He still won as QB that day right? He still threw a TD pass against a top defense, right? He still didn't turn it over or fumble it away (i.e. Nick Foles), right? That's the way the game went. Deal with it.

Yep. I am painting him in a negative light. He contributed very little to that win. Being better than Foles doesn't earn you points with me.

 

[jrry32]

Against a team that allowed 14 passing TDs on the entire year (7/8ths of a TD given up per game)? And again, why did he need to "take over the game" when they won on a balanced offense, and defense?

He didn't need to take over that game. The Rams defense was able to carry the team to a win. It certainly would have helped to have something more from the QB position, though.

But as I said before, there are games he'll need to take over and he doesn't have the ability to do that with any sort of consistency.

Against Tampa they needed more out of him, so he threw for 234 and 2 TDs for a 158 QB Rating. That's the game where Gurley was held to 48 yards on 21 carries. Remember. We're talking about his first starts in the Rams' system too.

After spending over a year in the Rams' system. And yes, I remember. His game against Tampa Bay was quite similar to Kellen Clemens's game against the Colts a couple years ago.

Where was he when we needed him to step up against the Ravens and 49ers?

You know what a cool response to that would be?

"Yeah, he can get the job done, and he doesn't look horrible. But I prefer we get a guy who has the potential to be the next great QB of our time. I like Case, but I don't like what I feel are his limitations."

Instead of,

"No. He's not good enough."

So your issue isn't my message, it's that I'm not going out of my way to be kind to Keenum when I say he's not the guy we need at QB?

I'm not going to sugar-coat it. I haven't broken any rules and I highly doubt Keenum is reading this board. The Rams need something more. They need a legitimate starting QB.

 

[-X-]

He didn't need to take over that game. The Rams defense was able to carry the team to a win. It certainly would have helped to have something more from the QB position, though.

But as I said before, there are games he'll need to take over and he doesn't have the ability to do that with any sort of consistency.

The defense was able to carry the team? Keenum threw a TD, Gurley rushed for a TD, GZ had a FG, and the defense scored a TD. In other words, everybody did their job. Well, except Keenum because he didn't take over the game apparently.

In your opinion he doesn't have the ability to do that. My opinion is that he can if we give him even one receiver worthy of 150 targets a year.

After spending over a year in the Rams' system. And yes, I remember. His game against Tampa Bay was quite similar to Kellen Clemens's game against the Colts a couple years ago.

Where was he when we needed him to step up against the Ravens and 49ers?

Oh, we're playing the comparison game again. Does that mean I get to ask where Bradford was in his 30 losses as a Ram?

So your issue isn't my message, it's that I'm not going out of my way to be kind to Keenum when I say he's not the guy we need at QB?

I'm not going to sugar-coat it. I haven't broken any rules and I highly doubt Keenum is reading this board. The Rams need something more. They need a legitimate starting QB.

No, it's your message. I don't care if you're kind to Keenum (weird statement). It would be nice if you could yield a little bit in some of these discussions about Keenum's ability, instead of leaning into every single one of them saying, "No, No, No, No, No, No, No." You'd think by your descriptions that Keenum is completely incapable of doing anything good, but I think I know why. You want him to be something that this offense hasn't had in over a decade. Maybe even more than a decade. You want him to be the ONE quarterback who can turn average receivers into world-beaters. Well, good luck with that. I prefer the alternative of getting a world beating receiver and letting the QB (whoever that may be) benefit from it.

But we have Quick and Britt, so all we really need is a rookie QB to turn them into something they not only never were, but probably never will be.
Because that's what rookie QBs do and stuff. They're magic.

 

[Juice]

Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Paxton Lynch
Connor Cook
Brett Hundley
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Mike Glennon

I'd take all of them over Keenum. But Fitzpatrick and Glennon don't have enough long term potential for me to dish out the assets to acquire them.

Here lies the problem of our situation with me. We would have to trade up to get Goff or Lynch. Like I have asked before, is it worth what it takes to trade up to get one of these guys? Does Foles have trade value to throw to a team that drafts before us? In my opinion, we can't develop QBs. It's our Achilles. I do not want to give up picks when we can't develop what we have. We still have holes to fill.

We quite possibly draft Lynch, and Cook, but I want you to tell me what they have that you do not see any of the QBs that we currently have on our roster. It's not a challenge. I am just curious what Lynch and Cook have over any of our QBs.

Why is there love for other backup QBs when we already have three. I do not know that much about Hundley. I mean I know he started for two years at UCLA and he is the backup in Green Bay. I watched Glennon at NCSU, so I am a little familiar. We have three back up QBs on the roster.

I would be down with Fitz, because I think he has the smarts to adapt to a new system. What if Foles wasn't the problem? What if Mannion is the answer? Tell me why this draft class is the year to make that move.

No new QB matters. The thought of making a move for another backup QB boggles my mind a bit. We are going to get a backup for our backups. Mike Glennon is not going to elevate this team. Brett Hundley isn't going give us that freaking offensive spark we have been missing. No rookie is either. We have problems on the offensive side of the ball that makes the QB question moot. Develop what we have or get somebody into this organization that can.

 

[jrry32]

The defense was able to carry the team? Keenum threw a TD, Gurley rushed for a TD, GZ had a FG, and the defense scored a TD. In other words, everybody did their job. Well, except Keenum because he didn't take over the game apparently.

In your opinion he doesn't have the ability to do that. My opinion is that he can if we give him even one receiver worthy of 150 targets a year.

Yes, the defense carried the team. I'm not trying to give Keenum no credit. He tossed a beautiful 28 yard TD to Britt. But that was also a 1 play 28 yard TD drive because the defense and Austin set us up on the 28 yard line. Great throw. Important play. But we typically will need more than one big play from the QB.

And it was 16-0 at that point near half-time because the defense clamped down on Wilson and scored a defensive TD.

In fact, Seattle got a garbage time TD with less than 20 seconds left to even make up look close. The defense had held them to 10 points to that point and completely dominated the game. Including giving us a defensive TD.

So no, everybody didn't do their job equally. The offense had 205 total yards and only 14 first downs. The defense carried the team to the win. Gurley, Keenum, Britt, Tavon, etc. certainly contributed in a positive way but the defense put the team on their backs that day. We actually lost the time of possession battle because the offense struggled so much moving the ball.

My opinion is that adding WRs doesn't change who Keenum is. Keenum was certainly nothing special in Houston with DeAndre Hopkins and Andre Johnson. I don't believe in putting nice rims on a car with an engine that barely works.

Oh, we're playing the comparison game again. Does that mean I get to ask where Bradford was in his 30 losses as a Ram?

Go for it. Then I can point you to the many games where he played well and we still lost. Unlike Keenum. Who played poorly against SF and Baltimore. And didn't even play that well in our wins except for the Tampa Bay game.

No, it's your message. I don't care if you're kind to Keenum (weird statement). It would be nice if you could yield a little bit in some of these discussions about Keenum's ability, instead of leaning into everyone of them saying, "No, No, No, No, No, No, No." You'd think by your descriptions that Keenum is completely incapable of doing anything good, but I think I know why.

No, you'd think by my descriptions that Keenum isn't a starting caliber QB. And you'd be right.

You want him to be something that this offense hasn't had in over a decade. Maybe even more than a decade. You want him to be the ONE quarterback who can turn average receivers into world-beaters. Well, good luck with that. I prefer the alternative of getting a world beating receiver and letting the QB (whoever that may be) benefit from it.

What a crock of bullshit. Don't even try lying, X. It's not hard to disprove lies on an internet forum. My stance has been made clear many times. I don't think the WRs or QB are good enough. But QB takes precedence. I want to fix both. Hence why I want to draft a potential franchise QB in Round 1, draft a WR in Round 2, and sign Anquan Boldin.

But we have Quick and Britt, so all we really need is a rookie QB to turn them into something they not only never were, but probably never will be.
Because that's what rookie QBs do and stuff. They're magic.

I guess I should start lying about your stances too. Since that seems to be your preferred way of discussing this. But we have the next Kurt Warner, why should we worry about anything? We have a future HOFer at QB with a top defense and running game.

 

[jrry32]

Here lies the problem of our situation with me. We would have to trade up to get Goff or Lynch. Like I have asked before, is it worth what it takes to trade up to get one of these guys? Does Foles have trade value to throw to a team that drafts before us? In my opinion, we can't develop QBs. It's our Achilles. I do not want to give up picks when we can't develop what we have. We still have holes to fill.

Yes. Trade up. It is worth it.

We quite possibly draft Lynch, and Cook, but I want you to tell me what they have that you do not see any of the QBs that we currently have on our roster. It's not a challenge. I am just curious what Lynch and Cook have over any of our QBs.

Lynch offers a lot more upside. He may need time to sit. He may not. But he has the ability to be a great QB if developed properly. He's big, athletic, has a great arm, and understands the position. He doesn't lack any attribute needed to be successful. He needs time and patience. He's a lot like Blake Bortles. He's a raw but if you're patient with the kid, he'll pan out for you. If that means rolling with Keenum in 2016 because Lynch isn't ready, so be it. Puts us in the same situation we'd be in if we hadn't drafted Lynch (starting Keenum). But having Lynch on this roster, even as a backup, would give me confidence that we have something special for the future.

Cook is inconsistent, streaky, and doesn't possess great accuracy but he's a lot like Jay Cutler or Eli Manning.(I'd call Eli his ceiling) He's not an incredibly consistent thrower but he has everything else. He can handle the game from the mental side of things, he has all the physical attributes necessary for the NFL, and he has a lot of experience in a pro style system. He's ready to step in right away and play. His accuracy can be improved by improving his lower body mechanics but I doubt it'll ever be great. Still, while his upside is capped, I think he's a legitimate starting QB. He'll provide you average to above average play and is a great fit for the Rams system. He was one of the best QBs in the NCAA against the blitz and one of the most accurate QBs throwing down the field (20+ yards). He has a lot of experience running a run-first, play-action heavy system.

I don't see any QB on our roster as a legitimate starter for a variety of reasons.

Why is there love for other backup QBs when we already have three. I do not know that much about Hundley. I mean I know he started for two years at UCLA and he is the backup in Green Bay. I watched Glennon at NCSU, so I am a little familiar. We have three back up QBs on the roster.

Glennon started and provided solid play on a bad team. His flaws are similar to Foles but he handled a bad situation in Tampa Bay a lot better than Foles did in STL. I think he's a better decision-maker than Foles, mentally tougher, and has better mental processing speed. But again, I wouldn't trade for him because I don't think he has enough upside to merit passing on a possible franchise QB in the first round.

With Hundley, I liked him coming out of college but had questions about some parts of his game due to his college system. I watched all of his preseason film from Green Bay and he answered those questions for me. Nobody doubts the physical talent. He's 6'3" 230 with great athleticism and a strong arm. I had other questions about him last year and like I said, he answered them. I think he has the upside to be a franchise QB.

I would be down with Fitz, because I think he has the smarts to adapt to a new system. What if Foles wasn't the problem? What if Mannion is the answer? Tell me why this draft class is the year to make that move.

Goff and Wentz are top tier prospects. Something we didn't have access to last year. Lynch and Cook are even better than the prospects we had access to last year.(although, Hundley has changed that perception with his play in Green Bay)

Last year's QB class had two guys at the top that were great. But they went #1 and #2. We had no shot at them. After that, Hundley and Grayson were the only two that I thought had starter potential. It was a bad class for depth. This class is very deep and has a lot of depth at the top. It's why it's the right year for us to make a move. Plus, many of the teams picking in the top 10 don't need QBs. Which is rare.

What if Mannion is the answer? Then he beats out the rookie QB and we trade the rookie QB in the near future. But I don't have any confidence in Mannion.

No new QB matters. The thought of making a move for another backup QB boggles my mind a bit. We are going to get a backup for our backups. Mike Glennon is not going to elevate this team. Brett Hundley isn't going give us that freaking offensive spark we have been missing. No rookie is either. We have problems on the offensive side of the ball that makes the QB question moot. Develop what we have or get somebody into this organization that can.

I don't agree with this assessment at all.

Our problems on the offensive side of the ball do not make the QB questions moot. As I've said before many times, plenty of QBs have been successful without great WRs.

But as I've said multiple times in this thread, we need to add a QB and WRs. Both. Not one or the other. Adding WRs with Keenum won't solve our problems. Adding a top QB without WRs will help...but it still won't completely solve the problem. Add both and fix the problem.

I have no interest in developing what we have. It's about as acceptable to me as trying to develop the WRs we have. Go out and make a change. It's clear (to me) that neither the QB nor the WR groups are getting it done.