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

[-X-]

Yes, the defense carried the team.

No they didn't. They did their job. If the offense scored zero points, they wouldn't have "carried them" anywhere.

Go for it. Then I can point you to the many games where he played well and we still lost.

Good thing you have 10 fingers. The point with Bradford has always been that he didn't have enough around him to succeed. Which is the same point that I'm making about Keenum now. But instead of acknowledging that universal truth about all QBs in this offense since 2006 (including Bulger in 2007), you'd rather fight me on it.

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.

That's fine that your *opinion* is contrary to mine. No problem at all with that.
However, I never said that adding a top flight receiver will change who Keenum is. All I've ever said is that it would help him maximize his talents. And he absolutely was much better with Hopkins and A. Johnson. The record doesn't reflect that, but he had quite a few games that you wouldn't have had an issue with if they were accomplished here.

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

Actually, I already said what I thought. No need for you to tell me what I feel your posts are conveying.

What a crock of bullcrap. 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.

If you would take the time to recognize the point I was making, you wouldn't be in such a rush to take everything so literal. Bullcrap and lies? Why don't you slow the hell down and see what I was saying. I was making a sarcastic point about how it would be impossible (in my opinion) for a rookie QB to come in here and do anything different with this group of receivers than Keenum is currently able to do now. So all I did was frame it that way by saying you want something we haven't had in forever; and thus, impossible. So relax.

We can't afford Wentz. The price, in all likelihood, would be our 1st, both our 2nds, our first in 2017, and our first in 2018. You think Goff, as raw as he is, would be able to turn into a Franchise QB? Well, okay then. I don't think he will. But that's also going to cost us at least both our 2nds. So you're not getting a receiver in the 2nd. And Anquan Boldin likely has no interest in signing with this team. In all likelihood, you're getting Lynch (maybe), or Cook, and a 2nd round WR. To me, that screams lateral move. That said, AGAIN, I have no problem with that, if that's how it goes down. I'd be up for more competition at QB, because that just increases the odds that we find one who can grow into a very good QB. Where we differ is that you think Keenum has already bumped his ceiling. I'm of the opinion that he hasn't.

Maybe we'll find out, and maybe we won't.
But that's where we differ.

 

[-X-]

And this is a pretty good article on MMQB about Keenum in his first year starting with the Texans at age 24.
It doesn't just say "he's not good enough." It outlines the things he's good at, and the things that need work. You know, objective stuff.

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/11/08/case-keenum-houston-texans-analysis

 

[jrry32]

No they didn't. They did their job. If the offense scored zero points, they wouldn't have "carried them" anywhere.

That's interesting...because it's possible we still go to OT even if the offense scores 0 points. Defense had a TD and if Keenum doesn't throw that TD, Zuerlein is still in range for a FG. That would make it 10-10. And I don't think the defense gives up the garbage time TD at the end if it's a tie game.

But you never know.

Good thing you have 10 fingers. The point with Bradford has always been that he didn't have enough around him to succeed. Which is the same point that I'm making about Keenum now. But instead of acknowledging that universal truth about all QBs in this offense since 2006 (including Bulger in 2007), you'd rather fight me on it.

The only thing I'm fighting you on is the belief that Case Keenum isn't part of the problem.

That's fine that your *opinion* is contrary to mine. No problem at all with that.
However, I never said that adding a top flight receiver will change who Keenum is. All I've ever said is that it would help him maximize his talents. And he absolutely was much better with Hopkins and A. Johnson. The record doesn't reflect that, but he had quite a few games that you wouldn't have had an issue with if they were accomplished here.

I don't doubt that. Football is a team sport. But Keenum is still Keenum. We'd still need to upgrade. That's an opportunity we have this year. It may not be there in the future.

If you would take the time to recognize the point I was making, you wouldn't be in such a rush to take everything so literal. Bullcrap and lies? Why don't you slow the hell down and see what I was saying. I was making a sarcastic point about how it would be impossible (in my opinion) for a rookie QB to come in here and do anything different with this group of receivers than Keenum is currently able to do now. So all I did was frame it that way by saying you want something we haven't had in forever; and thus, impossible. So relax.

We can't afford Wentz. The price, in all likelihood, would be our 1st, both our 2nds, our first in 2017, and our first in 2018. You think Goff, as raw as he is, would be able to turn into a Franchise QB? Well, okay then. I don't think he will. But that's also going to cost us at least both our 2nds. So you're not getting a receiver in the 2nd. And Anquan Boldin likely has no interest in signing with this team. In all likelihood, you're getting Lynch (maybe), or Cook, and a 2nd round WR. To me, that screams lateral move. That said, AGAIN, I have no problem with that, if that's how it goes down. I'd be up for more competition at QB, because that just increases the odds that we find one who can grow into a very good QB. Where we differ is that you think Keenum has already bumped his ceiling. I'm of the opinion that he hasn't.

Maybe we'll find out, and maybe we won't.
But that's where we differ.

X, I recognized your point a long time ago. I don't fully agree with it. You misrepresenting my stance doesn't change that. You framed my stance in dishonest terms and I don't appreciate that.

Goff isn't raw. He's more NFL ready than Wentz. So my answer to your question is yes. And no, I don't agree that it'll cost both our 2nds to move up. Might cost a 2nd and a future pick but that's a price I'm willing to pay.

If Anquan Boldin isn't interested in signing with us, they should have made a run at another WR. But I have a feeling Boldin's interests will change the longer he's on the market. Especially if we sell him on the idea that we're going to draft a top QB.

 

[-X-]

The only thing I'm fighting you on is the belief that Case Keenum isn't part of the problem.

Well this is a new one, because I never heard either of us state that he was or wasn't part of the problem. Let's talk about that. "The Problem" is offensive production, obviously. So is Keenum part of that problem or not? I guess I could say yes. But what I'd like to see is a receiver in the A.J. Green or Dez Bryant mold - on this team - to determine if it makes any appreciable difference in the offense as a whole. In other words, I need more information before I can say definitively that Keenum is holding us back. He had Johnson and Hopkins, and connected with them both regularly, but there was so much more wrong with that team than there is with this one now. And he was a sophomore over there who didn't play one snap as a rookie, and had to come in cold in the middle of the season on one of the worst teams in the league. That was his jumping off point in the NFL. Can you honestly tell me that THAT is the ideal way to start off a career as a QB?

 

[jrry32]

Well this is a new one, because I never heard either of us state that he was or wasn't part of the problem. Let's talk about that. "The Problem" is offensive production, obviously. So is Keenum part of that problem or not? I guess I could say yes. But what I'd like to see is a receiver in the A.J. Green or Dez Bryant mold - on this team - to determine if it makes any appreciable difference in the offense as a whole. In other words, I need more information before I can say definitively that Keenum is holding us back. He had Johnson and Hopkins, and connected with them both regularly, but there was so much more wrong with that team than there is with this one now. And he was a sophomore over there who didn't play one snap as a rookie, and had to come in cold in the middle of the season on one of the worst teams in the league. That was his jumping off point in the NFL. Can you honestly tell me that THAT is the ideal way to start off a career as a QB?

Ideal? No. But most QBs don't get to start their career in an ideal way.

But yes, this is where our disagreement lies. I do think Keenum is part of the problem. You aren't sure.(to get your stance correct) I don't like the idea of adding WRs and waiting it out. Because opportunities for teams with our talent level to draft a top QB are few and far between imo. If we don't capitalize now, we may not have another chance for years.

 

[-X-]

You framed my stance in dishonest terms and I don't appreciate that.

Well then I apologize. It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, but moreso to take your preference (a rookie QB) and play it out in a stream of consciousness on my keyboard. You weren't reading me lying about your opinion or offering you bullshit. You were reading how I took your preference and ran with it in a way that makes it look unappealing. Because it very well could be unappealing in the end *if everything else here stays constant*

Goff isn't raw. He's more NFL ready than Wentz. So my answer to your question is yes. And no, I don't agree that it'll cost both our 2nds to move up. Might cost a 2nd and a future pick but that's a price I'm willing to pay.

I think he's raw. He's more pro-ready than most QBs who play in a spread, but they used a lot of read play-action and shotgun. Shotgun in the NFL isn't as scarce as it used to be, so in that I'll agree that he's more pro-ready than others who preceded him. I think it'll cost at least both our 2nd, but a case can be made for one of our seconds this year, a swap of our firsts, and a first rounder next year. San Francisco needs a QB badly, and they'll probably move up in the draft to keep from being leap-frogged by the likes of us. It would cost them less to do it too.

If Anquan Boldin isn't interested in signing with us, they should have made a run at another WR. But I have a feeling Boldin's interests will change the longer he's on the market. Especially if we sell him on the idea that we're going to draft a top QB.

I still don't think so. He's not a fan of the Rams, and he's at an age where he'd like to go out on top. Telling him we'll draft a top QB shouldn't make any difference to a veteran receiver in the twilight of his career. But that's just the way I see it. I don't know who you think we should have made a run at in free agency this year. Name a good receiver who was available, and then tell me if he was worth the price. There are much better receivers to be had in this draft, IMO, and we can get at least two of them by keeping all of our picks and not moving up to get a QB who will cost a fortune.

 

[-X-]

But yes, this is where our disagreement lies. I do think Keenum is part of the problem. You aren't sure.(to get your stance correct) I don't like the idea of adding WRs and waiting it out. Because opportunities for teams with our talent level to draft a top QB are few and far between imo. If we don't capitalize now, we may not have another chance for years.

That's fair. We're still on different sides on this, but that's still a fair look at the situation without having to step on Keenum's face to do it. That said, have you *really* analyzed what it would take to go up and get either Wentz or Goff? The Redskins gave us a fortune for the 2nd QB in the draft 4 years ago. Do you not believe that the price has risen quite a bit since then? And they only moved up from the 6th spot. We have to climb up from the 15th. Neither TEN or CLE would like to drop 14 or 15 spots in the draft unless they're able to fleece us first.

 

[Amitar]

If we don't capitalize now, we may not have another chance for years.

I am hoping that chance has not already passed.
I would like to think Keenum could do well in a good system, and who knows what Mannion can do. We'll probably never find out unless Keenum gets injured no matter how he performs.
I wonder how Mannion compares to the QB's coming out this year. I mean he was drafted in the third round.
The only one that will ruin Gurley is Fisher and fill in the blank . After what I have witnessed over the last four years I have absolutely no faith that the Rams offense will do any better then last year even if they had Wr's Gordon and Beckham, and Dallas's OL.

 

[TexasRam]

I personally feel like keenum can be a very solid starter with a supporting cast. If we use our '16 early picks on oline and Wr.

I like our chances in that scenario better than sticking a Wentz in with this supporting cast, which is what we would have to do if we moved up to get him.

But I have been wrong once before maybe.

 

[jrry32]

Well then I apologize. It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, but moreso to take your preference (a rookie QB) and play it out in a stream of consciousness on my keyboard. You weren't reading me lying about your opinion or offering you bullcrap. You were reading how I took your preference and ran with it in a way that makes it look unappealing. Because it very well could be unappealing in the end *if everything else here stays constant*

I understand. Apology accepted. I interpreted it as you saying my stance was to add a QB and do nothing to address the WRs because I thought the WRs were fine. Which is why I got irritated. Yes, I think it would be unappealing if we end up not addressing WR at all. It's more appealing to me than not addressing QB at all...but still unappealing.

I think he's raw. He's more pro-ready than most QBs who play in a spread, but they used a lot of read play-action and shotgun. Shotgun in the NFL isn't as scarce as it used to be, so in that I'll agree that he's more pro-ready than others who preceded him. I think it'll cost at least both our 2nd, but a case can be made for one of our seconds this year, a swap of our firsts, and a first rounder next year. San Francisco needs a QB badly, and they'll probably move up in the draft to keep from being leap-frogged by the likes of us. It would cost them less to do it too.

I get the feeling that San Francisco's heads are shoved too far up their rear-end for them to move up. I think they're going to stay where they are. Don't get the feeling there's a very functional front office there right now.

I still don't think so. He's not a fan of the Rams, and he's at an age where he'd like to go out on top. Telling him we'll draft a top QB shouldn't make any difference to a veteran receiver in the twilight of his career. But that's just the way I see it. I don't know who you think we should have made a run at in free agency this year. Name a good receiver who was available, and then tell me if he was worth the price. There are much better receivers to be had in this draft, IMO, and we can get at least two of them by keeping all of our picks and not moving up to get a QB who will cost a fortune.

I think that's what we need to sell him on. Top defense, strong running game, and a talented young rookie that will help us get over the hump. Plus, he'll be the top WR in the offense. Which I do think matters to almost any WR (those guys tend to have egos).

I think Marvin Jones and Rishard Matthews would have been nice veteran additions and were worth the price they were paid.

I think we need to add a veteran WR. You saw the growing pains we went through last year with our rookie heavy OL. Think you'll have similar issues with a rookie heavy WR corp.

That's fair. We're still on different sides on this, but that's still a fair look at the situation without having to step on Keenum's face to do it. That said, have you *really* analyzed what it would take to go up and get either Wentz or Goff? The Redskins gave us a fortune for the 2nd QB in the draft 4 years ago. Do you not believe that the price has risen quite a bit since then? And they only moved up from the 6th spot. We have to climb up from the 15th. Neither TEN or CLE would like to drop 14 or 15 spots in the draft unless they're able to fleece us first.

Yes. I've analyzed it and concluded that I have no idea what it'll take. The RGIII trade package was the largest package for any pick in recent memory. The price has dropped from that simply because that was such a crazy price to begin with.

Personally, I'm not in favor of trading up to #1. I think our best move is to trade up with a team picking between #3 and #6. I like Wentz and Goff both. I have Goff ranked slightly higher. So I'm okay with waiting out the Browns.

Looking at recent drafts, that'll likely cost us a 1st, a 2nd, and possibly a future 1st. If we move up with Baltimore (#6) and Jacksonville (#5), we might be able to get away with a 1st and a 2nd or a 1st, a 2nd, and a future pick (not a first). If we move up with Dallas or SD, we'll likely be asked for a future 1st.

But if Tennessee will accept a 1st, 2nd, future 1st, and future 2nd...I'd certainly be willing to consider moving up to #1.

 

[-X-]

I understand. Apology accepted.

Salud. Now go get your freakin' shinebox.

I get the feeling that San Francisco's heads are shoved too far up their rear-end for them to move up. I think they're going to stay where they are. Don't get the feeling there's a very functional front office there right now.

Your whole plan hinges on the idea that this is correct. Because they're the most logical fit for Goff, and Kelly has got to be sending fruit baskets and Ghirardelli chocolates to Ballke and York to get into position to take him. So we're not so much bidding against ourselves on this one. The 49ers, to me, are the team that will force us to up the ante.

I think we need to add a veteran WR. You saw the growing pains we went through last year with our rookie heavy OL. Think you'll have similar issues with a rookie heavy WR corp.

You have a point, but I think the learning curve for receivers is significantly lower than it is for linemen. Getting a couple of really good receivers who can run routes (unlike Tavon, Bailey, Quick, Givens, etc) would go far in mitigating that curve. Rishard Matthews is kind of short and slow, and offers no improvement over a guy like Britt. I don't even think he's as good as Britt. To me, it would be like adding Sims-Walker or Steve (not the good one) Smith. We've been down that road before. We need a guy like Torry Holt who did quite well his first year and became a 7-time pro-bowler.

Personally, I'm not in favor of trading up to #1. I think our best move is to trade up with a team picking between #3 and #6. I like Wentz and Goff both. I have Goff ranked slightly higher. So I'm okay with waiting out the Browns.

Agree. Trading to #1 is cost-prohibitive. The Titans even said as much. But somebody's gonna do it, I think. No idea who, but somebody's gonna do it. Now if that does happen, someone else is gonna knock on Cleveland's door, or Cleveland is gonna go ahead and take Goff themselves. Having RGIII means nothing at this point in time, and they have to know that. After everything they've been through with QBs, it would be in their best interest to stockpile. But a case can be made that they do something else and Goff drops to 3. We'll have to deal with San Diego. So for San Diego to go from 3 to 15 will cost a ton. What would you take if you were the Rams and someone wanted you to drop 12 spots with all of those great players sitting there who won't be there at 15?

But if Tennessee will accept a 1st, 2nd, future 1st, and future 2nd...I'd certainly be willing to consider moving up to #1.

It's gonna cost WAY more than that for TEN to drop 14 spots in the draft. Washington gave us their 1st, 2nd, and 1st for the next two years to move up 4 spots. If we were in the #6 spot, I could see them accepting what you proposed. But not 14 spots, and not after Washington set the precedent.

 

[jrry32]

Salud. Now go get your freakin' shinebox.


Your whole plan hinges on the idea that this is correct. Because they're the most logical fit for Goff, and Kelly has got to be sending fruit baskets and Ghirardelli chocolates to Ballke and York to get into position to take him. So we're not so much bidding against ourselves on this one. The 49ers, to me, are the team that will force us to up the ante.


You have a point, but I think the learning curve for receivers is significantly lower than it is for linemen. Getting a couple of really good receivers who can run routes (unlike Tavon, Bailey, Quick, Givens, etc) would go far in mitigating that curve. Risard Matthews is kind of short and slow, and offers no improvement over a guy like Britt. I don't even think he's as good as Britt. To me, it would be like adding Sims-Walker or Steve (not the good one) Smith. We've been down that road before. We need a guy like Torry Holt who did quite well his first year and became a 7-time pro-bowler.


Agree. Trading to #1 is cost-prohibitive. The Titans even said as much. But somebody's gonna do it, I think. No idea who, but somebody's gonna do it. Now if that does happen, someone else is gonna knock on Cleveland's door, or Cleveland is gonna go ahead and take Goff themselves. Having RGIII means nothing at this point in time, and they have to know that. After everything they've been through with QBs, it would be in their best interest to stockpile. But a case can be made that they do something else and Goff drops to 3. We'll have to deal with San Diego. So for San Diego to go from 3 to 15 will cost a ton. What would you take if you were the Rams and someone wanted you to drop 12 spots with all of those great players sitting there who won't be there at 15?


It's gonna cost WAY more than that for TEN to drop 14 spots in the draft. Washington gave us their 1st, 2nd, and 1st for the next two years to move up 4 spots. If we were in the #6 spot, I could see them accepting what you proposed. But not 14 spots, and not after Washington set the precedent.

The thing about Washington is that they were in a bidding war. Where we disagree is that I don't see a foe for a bidding war. Don't think SF wants to get involved. Don't think Philly has the assets or the overwhelming need.

The question with Tennessee comes down to whether they value the player they're taking at #1 more than #15, a 2nd, a future 1st, and a future 2nd.

But again, I don't think trading up with Tennessee is necessary.

As for Rishard Matthews, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think he's a solid #2 WR. Which is definitely something. I'm not one of those people who believes you have to have a #1 WR to succeed. You just need guys that can get open with some sort of consistency.

 

[-X-]

As for Rishard Matthews, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think he's a solid #2 WR. Which is definitely something. I'm not one of those people who believes you have to have a #1 WR to succeed. You just need guys that can get open with some sort of consistency.

Fair enough. Quick and Britt are #2's. Do they get open with some sort of consistency? Also, I don't think we need to have a #1 WR to succeed, but I do think we need one ... period. Honestly man, I think this can go two ways. One, Snead/Fisher are going to do whatever it takes to get one of the top two QBs, or they're going to use all of their resources (and maybe even acquire more) and throw them all at the offense on the first two days.

 

[jrry32]

Fair enough. Quick and Britt are #2's. Do they get open with some sort of consistency? Also, I don't think we need to have a #1 WR to succeed, but I do think we need one ... period. Honestly man, I think this can go two ways. One, Snead/Fisher are going to do whatever it takes to get one of the top two QBs, or they're going to use all of their resources (and maybe even acquire more) and throw them all at the offense on the first two days.

Quick isn't a #2 WR to me. Not the Quick that played in 2015. That was a #4 or #5 WR.

Britt is a different type of #2 WR. He's a vertical threat. Separates well vertically but doesn't separate well underneath. Matthews is more the opposite.

 

[CGI_Ram]

This thread...

 

[-X-]

Britt is a different type of #2 WR. He's a vertical threat. Separates well vertically but doesn't separate well underneath. Matthews is more the opposite.

Agree. That's why I said Rishard would be more like Sims-Walker or Steve Smith. Neither were over-the-top guys, but worked the intermediate zones with some success. They also often got lost in the mix too. I take it you'd want a guy like that under the condition that we get a different QB. Because I don't think a guy like Matthews is someone who can elevate the offense as is. Meaning, he wouldn't be so dominant that he'd give Keenum (or Mannion or Foles) that perfect first read in the passing game. I'd rather have Treadwell and/or Doctson.

 

[ramsince62]

That's your personal opinion. But there's roughly 32 NFL Execs that believe there are two sure fire franchise QBs in this draft. And I happen to believe so as well. And they don't even have to be elite. A solid consistent starter would be worth the investment. I'm in the boat that the Rams need to go get one. If they don't, whatever. Keenum is 5-2 in the last two years. Yeah he had a bad first season in Houston at 0-8, but who doesn't? They've been trash for a long time too. Not too many guys coming out of college jumping into that dumpster fire, succeed. Keenum has steadily improved his game. Not saying I want him to be the starter, but he get's no credit for what he's done. Look how long it took Fitzpatrick to become anything. He was epically trash for the first half of his career. I feel better with Keenum and Mannion, then I would Foles and Mannion. Let's just hope, these aren't our two options to start the season.

Not disputing anything you've said. However, the year Bradford was the #1 prize bull EVERYONE believed he was the next elite, king maker or whatever title one chooses. He was so valued, that despite missing an entire season, the evaluators drooled at the possibilities. I'd wager there wasn't a pessimist among them.....guaranteed winner, from the same or very similar "NFL execs" as this time around.

Point being, there are no guarantees, especially when it comes to "sure fire franchise QB's."

 

[jrry32]

Agree. That's why I said Rishard would be more like Sims-Walker or Steve Smith. Neither were over-the-top guys, but worked the intermediate zones with some success. They also often got lost in the mix too. I take it you'd want a guy like that under the condition that we get a different QB. Because I don't think a guy like Matthews is someone who can elevate the offense as is. Meaning, he wouldn't be so dominant that he'd give Keenum (or Mannion or Foles) that perfect first read in the passing game. I'd rather have Treadwell and/or Doctson.

Smith's knees were shot when he got here. His career was done. Sims-Walker was a head-case which is why we cut him mid-season.

I'd want Matthews + a 2nd round WR + Goff/Wentz/Lynch/Cook.

With Treadwell or Doctson (especially Doctson), there's a real risk that neither is ready to contribute in a major way as a rookie.

 

[-X-]

Smith's knees were shot when he got here. His career was done. Sims-Walker was a head-case which is why we cut him mid-season.

I know. I was talking about them as they were in their prime. Not deep threats, more intermediate zone receivers.
Doesn't really matter what happened when/after they got here (Smith had a brilliant workout with the Rams at the time). They just don't fit my need.

 

[Akrasian]

I know. I was talking about them as they were in their prime. Not deep threats, more intermediate zone receivers.
Doesn't really matter what happened when/after they got here (Smith had a brilliant workout with the Rams at the time). They just don't fit my need.

See, I think more than anything the Rams need a consistent intermediate zone receiver. Somebody who can go across the middle and frequently get open and hold onto the ball when it's 3rd and 7. Tavon and Gurley can bust the big plays - but the Rams have far too many 4 and outs. Extra first downs would help the defense, and give Gurley and Tavon more opportunities to bust one to the end zone.