1. To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

New QB Time!

Discussion in 'RAMS - NFL TALK' started by classicpony, Oct 31, 2013.

  1. flv

    flv Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,403
    Credit:
    $3,508.48
    The question is whether we have a back-up QB, a developmental QB, or both. Back-up QBs aren't there to win Super Bowls, (normally speaking, but with obvious exceptions). They're there to help you win enough games to keep you in the hunt until your starter gets back from a 4-8 week injury. Clemens is a decent back-up. If Bradford's situation was different I wouldn't mind having him back in 2014. Bradford's health will be a question mark for months and he isn't guaranteed significant money next year. That means the team have options and could move in another direction. The team might think it prudent to sign a better quality QB as a safety net or short-term replacement in case things don't work out with Bradford. It's possible a developmental QB might be selected in the Draft. It makes little sense to sign Clemens for next year until things become clearer. Losing him in April shouldn't be a major blow if that were to happen.
  2. RamFan503

    RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Messages:
    10,519
    Credit:
    $3,852,324.00
    Name:
    Stu
    This is exactly what I found a couple weeks ago when I looked around.
  3. jrry32

    jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,170
    Credit:
    $4,296,434.16
    I'd take Kyle Orton, Matt Schaub, Kirk Cousins, Ryan Nassib, Matt Moore, Jason Campbell and Shaun Hill in a heartbeat. But...doesn't matter because that's not the choice we have.
  4. -X-

    -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Messages:
    17,495
    Credit:
    $6,484,848.93
    Name:
    The Dude
    Hey. What you do in your own time is your b'ness. [​IMG]
  5. RamFan503

    RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Messages:
    10,519
    Credit:
    $3,852,324.00
    Name:
    Stu
    You're right in that we don't have those choices. But out of that group, I'd maybe take Orton and Cousins. Not sure why you really think Nassib is that good. Maybe he is but he had something like a 60% completion rate playing in THE worst conference in major college football. Matt Moore has real issues between the ears unless he changed something from his college days and early pro career. Jason Campbell? I don't think he gives us a big advantage over KC even if he knew the offense. And Shaun Hill may be a little better but practically IS Kellen Clemens - a career back-up for a reason. I fail to see any future upside with any of these guys besides Cousins - who we are not getting away from WA, and maybe Nassib because he might - MIGHT have upside in the NFL. If we're going by college numbers, KC's college numbers far outshined Nassib's while playing in a much better conference.

    Anyway, Kellen will likely never impress us as a true #1 QB but given the real choices that we ACTUALLY do have, I'd keep him even over most of those AND the options on your list.
  6. dieterbrock

    dieterbrock Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    312
    Credit:
    $2,791,752.14
    Just read thru this thread from the beginning. The Clemens saga has been pretty entertaining to say the least.
    The Rams went from being the league laughing stock during the <False> Favre rumors, and now Green Bay is so desperate they signed Matt Flynn to throw left handed. Clem is what he is. A grizzled vet who knows the system, and can keep the young-uns on track. Wont win any races or beauty contests, but he'll get the job done.
  7. jrry32

    jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,170
    Credit:
    $4,296,434.16
    When I did extensive film study of Nassib, I saw him as an extremely similar player to Cousins...and somewhat similar to Kellen Clemens really. He's just a younger option that I think has upside and would have some trade value if he did well. Campbell and Orton both were alright as starters and have more consistent track records than KC. Moore has been up and down but Clemens is the same way. I think Moore offers more when up. Hill lacks an arm but he plays smart, anticipates routes well and has always impressed me with his ability to manage the game when he's been asked to step in.

    But Clemens is playing good football right now so I have no issues with him.
  8. mr.stlouis

    mr.stlouis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,520
    Credit:
    $5,252,021.33
    Name:
    Nick
    Bottom line is everybody has to step up in Bradford's absence. We saw what happens when the Rams play well as a whole. We've had multiple games this year where only Bradford, Quinn, and maybe another played at a high level. Clemens actually inherited a better situation than Sam. How? Zac Stacy started Jacksonville game and Bradford went down a game and a half later. If STL could have somehow got that running game going in the beginning of the season then we're looking at a much better record, IMO. I guess it's good we have this figured out for next year, but this year isnt over yet.
  9. Thordaddy

    Thordaddy Binding you with ancient logic

    Messages:
    8,022
    Credit:
    $2,691,350.07
    Name:
    Rich
    I think the divide is really the question as in which team has the greatest dropoff from starter to backup, I don't think there was a dropoff from Vick to Foles and I'd think if Vick comes back he will face a cacophony ( my verbal dynamics word of the day:cool:) of boos unless he absolutely shines.
    The greatest divide of which I am aware is from PManning to Osweiler, unless his accuracy has improved the Broncos season is as over as bell bottoms if their starter goes down.
    I think the guy you have as your backup and what you need from him is satisfied by KC in every expect-able capacity(yesterdays "word") if he was physically much better he'd BE a starter somewhere and his knowledge of the playbook and his OC's knowledge of what to expect from him is about as good a situation as you could hope for, add to that his ability to actually help teach the system to your starter ,JMO we would be foolish to try to replace him unless we had a damned good alternative and thought Sam was so accomplished in the system that he couldn't learn anything from KC.
    I agree completely with deiter 'bout this ,I wouldn't mind if we got an athlete around the third round to develop and even as someone who came in and looked awesome with a veteran team in the rare appearance , became trade bait like we see from time to time in the league.
  10. nighttrain

    nighttrain Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,823
    Credit:
    $3,039,981.01
    sign a QB next year as a backup in the 3rd round
    train
  11. blackbart

    blackbart Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,253
    Credit:
    $2,358,130.98
    Name:
    Tim
    I can see signing a QB to develop but unless someone else falls in our lap I don't really see anyone who can come in and provide the stability that Clemens has shown this year. $870K including a signing bonus, sounds like a pretty good insurance policy.
  12. bluecoconuts

    bluecoconuts Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,704
    Credit:
    $3,503,716.04
    If Clemons continues to play decent (I.E. not be completely awful, turning the ball over constantly, unable to make any throws, etc) I think they'll just resign him because he knows the system. Unless the value is too great to pass on, the coaching staff is likely comfortable with what we have at QB.
  13. LesBaker

    LesBaker Mr. Savant

    Messages:
    4,894
    Credit:
    $3,745,510.92
    Name:
    Les
    Can you relate this thought to me in something easier to understand.......using ribs as an analogy instead of tires.


    Kidding aside, all the bitching about not having a backup QB has been laid to rest IMO. And I have no interest in drafting a developmental guy unless someone can provide a list of QBs drafted in the third round or later that got developed into excellent starters.
  14. jrry32

    jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,170
    Credit:
    $4,296,434.16
    I mean...I can provide a list...doesn't mean we should or shouldn't draft one. :wink:

    List
    Tom Brady - 6th
    Russell Wilson - 3rd
    Nick Foles - 3rd(well...yet to prove he's excellent)
    Kurt Warner - UDFA
    Joe Montana - 3rd
    Tony Romo - UDFA
    Matt Schaub - 3rd
    Jeff Garcia - UDFA
    Trent Green - 8th
    Rich Gannon - 4th
    Marc Bulger - 6th
    Mark Brunell - 5th
    Matt Hasselbeck - 6th
    Brian Griese - 3rd
    Brad Johnson - 9th
    Jake Delhomme - UDFA
    Warren Moon - UDFA

    There are a lot more but I tried to limit it to QBs who played recently...except for Montana...because he's Montana.

    And I guess it depends on your definition of "excellent" but all these guys were Pro Bowl QBs at one point or another.
    2 people like this.
  15. moklerman

    moklerman Warner-phile

    Messages:
    1,510
    Credit:
    $3,273,091.65
    I'm seeing a few problems with that list. Without the NFL Europe league I think Warner and Delhomme might not have made it and without the CFL, Garcia and Moon may never have got a shot. Schaub, Green, Gannon, Bulger, Brunell and Hasslebeck didn't really do much for the teams that drafted them. This looks more like a list supporting the idea to scour other team's rosters for practice squad/backup guys.
  16. LesBaker

    LesBaker Mr. Savant

    Messages:
    4,894
    Credit:
    $3,745,510.92
    Name:
    Les
    I see four guys I would call excellent.

    And other than those not a lot of wins in the post season.

    The list is fine if I said starters, but only a few of those guys are excellent. The rest are not.

    Brian Greise? Really? WTF was that lol.......
  17. jrry32

    jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,170
    Credit:
    $4,296,434.16
    You see four guys...on a list with four HOFers/future HOFers?

    Seems like steep expectations to me. :wink:
  18. fearsomefour

    fearsomefour Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,207
    Credit:
    $3,690,220.57
    I second this. However, if Clemons plays like he has the last couple of weeks I see no need to burn a high draft pick on a QB. Want to use a late round pick on a developmental guy for learn under Clemons and Bradford, great.
  19. LesBaker

    LesBaker Mr. Savant

    Messages:
    4,894
    Credit:
    $3,745,510.92
    Name:
    Les
    I see three HOF guys.....wait is Moon in? Hmmmm

    There are some average guys on that list.....and some good players, but not a lot of excellent ones so my point is why spend a pick on a developmental QB when you can use it somewhere else.
  20. jrry32

    jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,170
    Credit:
    $4,296,434.16
    Yep, Moon is in.

    Every player on the list made a Pro Bowl at QB. Some were average. Some were good starters. Some were great. Some were HOFers.

    I think if you get an average or better starting QB in the 3rd or later, you're doing well. Plus, those guys tend to have great trade values.

    Why spend a pick on a developmental QB?
    A. They're good value
    and
    B. If your starter goes down, they can start
    and
    C. They tend to have great trade value if they play well