Quarterbacks

[Rmfnlt]

What DR RAM just said.

I do believe he speaks for the silent and non agenda driven majority. Lol.

Yes, one should be careful not to think more highly of themselves than what they really are - a fan.

As @-X- said, they are all just opinions... until such time as the player actually proves what we think.

 

[Rams43]

An interesting and spirited thread, indeed.

My thoughts are simple...

Keenum is 2-1 as a Ram starter. Against the Ravens he looked lost.

But under Boras and with a more stable OL that's finally showing signs of life, he's 2-0. That's a helluva lot better than our overall record.

He's played conservatively and made few costly errors in the last 2 games. Players are catching the ball from him and making plays, Britt and Cook in particular. Is that Boras or is that Keenum? I frankly dunno, but I do know that I like it.

Keenum has 2 more games left to make his statement. What's the harm in reviewing his status AFTER we watch his play and decisions in those games?

Personally, I see him as a quality backup for us. But I would love to see him exceed my expectations.

I currently favor either picking a QB that they really like with our 1st and/or a FA or QB trade in an effort to upgrade our QB position. With keeping Keenum as our fail safe as backup. And I'm ruling nobody either in or out. Nobody.

Mannion? No data to provide a clue as yet. Somehow, some way they need to determine what his potential might be.

Having said all that, Fisher is probably one of the worst possible HC's we could have with such a multitude of critical QB decisions on the line.

Kinda ironic, huh?

 

[nighttrain]

I concur and IMO in the Seattle game Keenum will be exposed again like he was against the Ravens. However, if Keenum plays well against the Seahawks and it's a close game or they even win and add another victory the following week against the 49ers (very winnable game) there is no way Fisher lets Keenum go.

However, if it's business as usual against the Seahawks 27-10 and he's okay against the 49ers, IMO, Fisher and Snead will go in another direction once again in 2016.

Good post
train

 

[jrry32]

That's some nice work there. Thanks - learned a few things
Look I like the Daniels kid, but right now I think we have something in Keenum as a starter. And I'm not the guy who chanted for TJ Rubley or Keith Null -- I'm not a fan of backups -- but can you break down exactly what Keenum is doing that leads you to think he stinks, cause I think he can play

Sure. My issues with Keenum are that we know he has physical limitations in terms of size and arm strength (we all saw the balls dying on him in Baltimore). However, I also don't think he's an accurate QB and I don't like the way he reacts to be being blitzed and pressure. His instinct is to try and scramble. Austin Davis used to do the same thing. It often leads him scrambling into sacks and it completely undermines any timing/hot routes we had. It's not always a bad idea to scramble but the key is knowing the time and place. The good/great QBs know when to stand tall and get the ball out quickly to beat the blitz. I don't think Keenum does. And frankly, he's made some bad decisions while scrambling which led to avoidable sacks that really hurt us.

You're not the only Rams fan I have seen promoting him, I just never saw the reasoning.

What you are saying is do the same thing they have right now with Keenum and Mannion. Except replace them with two new guys who don't know the offense. I don't see any talent worth giving away the entire draft for coming out in 2016. It will take a trade up for any of the guys who might be as good as???? in two years.

I just don't see the Rams or anyone else doing that. They have time and money invested at the QB position. Hopefully they can trade Foles to get away from that contract and let Keenum and Mannion fight it out for the starting job next year. We've already seen Keenum improving as he has gotten more PT. This weekend in Seattle will be a huge test, he doesn't need to be great just not bad. Seattle is probably the toughest place he will ever be challenged there aren't many teams winning there. The next week in SF a more average road game will give him another chance at a winnable game.

If he goes 3-2 he should and likely will get a chance to win the starting job next year. Dump Foles and bring in Daniels sure competition is a good thing but I don't see it and I don't see them drafting another guy this year. There are too many needs at the top of the draft to wast a pick on another guy who compares to what they already have.

This is assuming we run the same offense. We already fired our OC and we have no idea what the plans are moving forward for the next OC.

Yep, Daniel is more of the same with Keenum...but I think he's better. However, what we'd be doing wouldn't be the same thing with Mannion. We'd be drafting a much more talented QB. And that makes a huge difference (to me).

If they're not drafting a guy this off-season, they either don't care about the future or believe Mannion is the future. And I don't feel comfortable with either of these things.

 

[blackbart]

Sure. My issues with Keenum are that we know he has physical limitations in terms of size and arm strength (we all saw the balls dying on him in Baltimore). However, I also don't think he's an accurate QB and I don't like the way he reacts to be being blitzed and pressure. His instinct is to try and scramble. Austin Davis used to do the same thing. It often leads him scrambling into sacks and it completely undermines any timing/hot routes we had. It's not always a bad idea to scramble but the key is knowing the time and place. The good/great QBs know when to stand tall and get the ball out quickly to beat the blitz. I don't think Keenum does. And frankly, he's made some bad decisions while scrambling which led to avoidable sacks that really hurt us.



This is assuming we run the same offense. We already fired our OC and we have no idea what the plans are moving forward for the next OC.

Yep, Daniel is more of the same with Keenum...but I think he's better. However, what we'd be doing wouldn't be the same thing with Mannion. We'd be drafting a much more talented QB. And that makes a huge difference (to me).

If they're not drafting a guy this off-season, they either don't care about the future or believe Mannion is the future. And I don't feel comfortable with either of these things.

I agree that he has had chances to get rid of the ball on a couple of those sacks and ate it instead so some room to grow there that I think will come with more reps.

If Fisher does not get extended I don't think we will see a new OC, who is going to come to a team that has a HC on the last year of his contract? I think he has done a better job at some of the plays that were missing in the middle of the field, I was really happy to see the seam route to Cook. But there are limited changes they can make this late into the season so grading him on what they do the last 4 games in what really isn't his complete package? I don't know what to think.

We just don't know about Mannion, he hasn't had a chance to show anything. Has the work with Garcia and Wenke helped tighten things up? He has the physical attributes. I don't know if he can read defenses, seems to be able to make all the throws from his college film but there is a lot more to it. Is Cook better? Will he be? I hate the idea of blowing up our draft to move up for any of the guys coming out, Goff meh? I think I'd rather have one of the top WRs (Thomas, Williams, Treadwell???) and see what Mannion can do. Maybe pick a QB in 2017 in the first couple of rounds if he doesn't display what we need moving forward.

 

[jrry32]

We just don't know about Mannion, he hasn't had a chance to show anything. Has the work with Garcia and Wenke helped tighten things up? He has the physical attributes. I don't know if he can read defenses, seems to be able to make all the throws from his college film but there is a lot more to it. Is Cook better? Will he be? I hate the idea of blowing up our draft to move up for any of the guys coming out, Goff meh? I think I'd rather have one of the top WRs (Thomas, Williams, Treadwell???) and see what Mannion can do. Maybe pick a QB in 2017 in the first couple of rounds if he doesn't display what we need moving forward.

My problem with Mannion is that he's shown nothing at the NFL level and his college film isn't good. Hard for me to buy into him as a future starter. A top WR does us no good if we don't have anything at QB.

 

[blackbart]

My problem with Mannion is that he's shown nothing at the NFL level and his college film isn't good. Hard for me to buy into him as a future starter. A top WR does us no good if we don't have anything at QB.

Have you got any idea what the QB class will look like in 2017? I know that is a stretch but I don't think the egos would let the Rams FO say Mannion is just a back up guy at best and we wasted a 3rd rounder when he hasn't played a meaningful snap. I could see Mannion being plan A with Keenum plan B open competition in camp and use the 2016 draft to get the WR needed to finish off the complimentary offensive players and restock what we lose in FA and cuts

 

[jrry32]

Have you got any idea what the QB class will look like in 2017? I know that is a stretch but I don't think the egos would let the Rams FO say Mannion is just a back up guy at best and we wasted a 3rd rounder when he hasn't played a meaningful snap. I could see Mannion being plan A with Keenum plan B open competition in camp and use the 2016 draft to get the WR needed to finish off the complimentary offensive players and restock what we lose in FA and cuts

Yea but spending a late 3rd on a QB that ends up developing into a quality backup isn't a wasted pick.(if Mannion only becomes that) That's an outcome you're content with.

Do I have any idea? No. As it stands now, it doesn't look like a strong class. But that can change based on who declares and who doesn't.(and what QBs emerge next year) But I think 2016 will likely end up being a better class.

 

[WvuIN02]

If you take a QB as a rookie and want him to be the future, you play him then, period.

I watched a video from the Manning passing academy where both Peyton and Eli were asked about if rookie QBs should start or sit and learn and both said they learned more in their first years of lumps and bruises than the rest of their career. Both said that if you dont have live bullets flying at your head then you just set yourself back because of how different it is in a game situation vs guys who are trying to break you in half vs red QB shirt in practice.

 

[Ballhawk]

My problem with Mannion is that he's shown nothing at the NFL level and his college film isn't good. Hard for me to buy into him as a future starter. A top WR does us no good if we don't have anything at QB.

And just how is he supposed to show something at the NFL level if he never plays? Right now we are either going with Keenum or Foles next year since they are the only QBs we have that have shown anything in the NFL. And that goes for any rookie we draft next year as well!

 

[jrry32]

If you take a QB as a rookie and want him to be the future, you play him then, period.

I watched a video from the Manning passing academy where both Peyton and Eli were asked about if rookie QBs should start or sit and learn and both said they learned more in their first years of lumps and bruises than the rest of their career. Both said that if you dont have live bullets flying at your head then you just set yourself back because of how different it is in a game situation vs guys who are trying to break you in half vs red QB shirt in practice.

Except for the fact that Eli didn't start until midway through his rookie year. And Peyton Manning was Peyton Manning...and a four year starter from a pro style offense that played in the SEC.(Eli was a 3 year starter in a pro style offense in the SEC)

They're not exactly representative of the entire QB population. Especially today's QB population.

On the other side of the equation, here's a list of current starting QBs that didn't start at least 8 games as a rookie:
Aaron Rodgers (no starts as a rookie)
Philip Rivers (no starts as a rookie)
Tom Brady (no starts as a rookie)
Carson Palmer (no starts as a rookie)
Drew Brees (no starts as a rookie)
Tyrod Taylor (no starts as a rookie)
Colin Kaepernick (no starts as a rookie)
Josh McCown (no starts as a rookie)
Brian Hoyer (no starts as a rookie)
Kirk Cousins (1 start as a rookie)
Ryan Fitzpatrick (3 starts as a rookie)
Jay Cutler (5 starts as a rookie)
Nick Foles (6 starts as a rookie)
Alex Smith (7 starts as a rookie)

That's 14 of 32 starters. Some great, some good, some average, and some bad. So no, you don't have to play a QB as a rookie. And I'd say you're doing your rookie QB a great disservice if you toss him in before he has the playbook down, has chemistry with his WRs, and has had a chance to improve any mechanical flaws in his game.

If you look at the lists of QBs that didn't play and QBs that did play as rookies, you'll see plenty of HOF QBs on both lists and plenty of bad QBs on both lists. There isn't a formula for success. It's a case by case decision. Not one where you say, "I have to play this guy or else."

 

[jrry32]

And just how is he supposed to show something at the NFL level if he never plays? Right now we are either going with Keenum or Foles next year since they are the only QBs we have that have shown anything in the NFL. And that goes for any rookie we draft next year as well!

He's in the NFL. He's had an opportunity to play. Fisher either didn't give him a shot at the job or he didn't win the job.

As for the bold, nope. Not at all what I was saying. Don't misrepresent my stance.

Give me a 1st round rookie over Keenum and Foles. But I won't complain if Mannion earns the job. And I'd love if the Rams replaced both Keenum and Foles with better QBs.

 

[Ballhawk]

But there is no way to know if a first round rookie would be better that either Keenum or Foles, especially if they don't play him.
I have no faith in the current staff evaluating a QB accurately without NFL game tape on him, and even then it's a crap shoot for them as we see in their handling of Foles.

 

[jrry32]

But there is no way to know if a first round rookie would be better that either Keenum or Foles, especially if they don't play him.
I have no faith in the current staff evaluating a QB accurately without NFL game tape on him, and even then it's a crap shoot for them as we see in their handling of Foles.

Over the past 5 years, there have been 14 QBs drafted in the first round. 7 of the 14 QBs look like successes at this point. I'll take 50/50 odds over sticking with Keenum and Foles.

As I said before, you determine whether or not to play the rookie based on his readiness.

Which is why I also recommend bringing in Chase Daniel. Replace Foles and Keenum with a rookie and Daniel. Keep Mannion.

 

[PressureD41]

1st off season move is too hire our OC and I'm pounding the table for Mike McCoy

Then I am hearing Drew Brees will be cut loose and I think we would be a great fit for him. Great RB & DEF
Draft a WR in Rd 1.

BOOM, playoffs the next 5 years!!!

 

[CGI_Ram]

Not sure if this has been posted. Nothing new, really.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...itzpatrick-other-qbs-nfl-teams-evaluating-nfl

By now, Christmas shopping is just about complete. But offseason wish lists still are being compiled, and will be for some time. At the top of most desperate NFL teams' wish lists are, of course, quarterbacks. Without one, consistent winning is virtually impossible.

Teams expected to be in the quarterback market include the Jets, Browns, Texans, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, 49ers, Rams, and maybe more.

And here are the quarterbacks, in alphabetical order, that teams already have begun studying, reviewing and contemplating. With two games left, these are the guys to watch.

Philadelphia's Sam Bradford: A pending free agent, if Bradford joined another team next season, he would become the first No. 1 overall pick at quarterback to play for three teams within his first seven NFL seasons.

New Orleans' Drew Brees: His $30 million salary-cap number for next season is scheduled to be the highest in NFL history; it is not expected to stand. The question is whether the two sides restructure it or lop it off the Saints' payroll.

Washington's Kirk Cousins: He is scheduled to be a free agent after this season, but Washington always could use its franchise tag on Cousins. If not, it's risky. John Elway could ask his friend Mike Shanahan for insight into Cousins, or Shanahan himself could make a run at Cousins if he re-enters the league in some capacity.

San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick: His three playoff road wins are the most in franchise history, more than both Joe Montana and Steve Young, but he could not get it done this season. San Francisco has not closed the door on bringing him back, but most expect Kaepernick and the 49ers to part ways, ideally allowing him to go to a team with an imaginative offensive mind.

Denver's Peyton Manning: Denver is not expected to bring his contract back, not with all the cap costs it would bring. The real question is whether Manning will want to continue playing. There is some serious skepticism around the league that he will.

Cleveland's Johnny Manziel: First Cleveland must figure out who is making decisions and coaching next season. Once that's finalized, they can figure out exactly what to do with Manziel, though a marriage with the Dallas Cowboyshas to be considered a logical option if Cleveland opts to trade him.

Denver's Brock Osweiler: Also on an expiring contract, his value is difficult to calculate. It's hard to imagine Denver will be willing to pay him as an elite starting quarterback, yet with all the teams in the league desperate at the position, someone will.

It's an interesting collection, this crop of quarterbacks who could or will be available. These are the players who will help determine whether their teams are shopping for new general managers and head coaches in future seasons

 

[dieterbrock]

Except for the fact that Eli didn't start until midway through his rookie year. And Peyton Manning was Peyton Manning...and a four year starter from a pro style offense that played in the SEC.(Eli was a 3 year starter in a pro style offense in the SEC)

They're not exactly representative of the entire QB population. Especially today's QB population.

On the other side of the equation, here's a list of current starting QBs that didn't start at least 8 games as a rookie:
Aaron Rodgers (no starts as a rookie)
Philip Rivers (no starts as a rookie)
Tom Brady (no starts as a rookie)
Carson Palmer (no starts as a rookie)
Drew Brees (no starts as a rookie)
Tyrod Taylor (no starts as a rookie)
Colin Kaepernick (no starts as a rookie)
Josh McCown (no starts as a rookie)
Brian Hoyer (no starts as a rookie)
Kirk Cousins (1 start as a rookie)
Ryan Fitzpatrick (3 starts as a rookie)
Jay Cutler (5 starts as a rookie)
Nick Foles (6 starts as a rookie)
Alex Smith (7 starts as a rookie)

That's 14 of 32 starters. Some great, some good, some average, and some bad. So no, you don't have to play a QB as a rookie. And I'd say you're doing your rookie QB a great disservice if you toss him in before he has the playbook down, has chemistry with his WRs, and has had a chance to improve any mechanical flaws in his game.

If you look at the lists of QBs that didn't play and QBs that did play as rookies, you'll see plenty of HOF QBs on both lists and plenty of bad QBs on both lists. There isn't a formula for success. It's a case by case decision. Not one where you say, "I have to play this guy or else."

Well if you want to consider the fat in that equation worth discussion, so be it. But the meat of it, Rodgers, Brady, Rivers, Brees and Palmer all had solid incumbent starters playing in front of them.
Blake Bortles didn't learn from watching Chad Henne as sure as Manning didn't develop by watching Warner. Heck Manning should have started day 1 as he was the better qb in pre season that year
I'll go with the Mannings on this one.

 

[jrry32]

Well if you want to consider the fat in that equation worth discussion, so be it. But the meat of it, Rodgers, Brady, Rivers, Brees and Palmer all had solid incumbent starters playing in front of them.
Blake Bortles didn't learn from watching Chad Henne as sure as Manning didn't develop by watching Warner. Heck Manning should have started day 1 as he was the better qb in pre season that year
I'll go with the Mannings on this one.

And I'll go with Aaron Rodgers AND Tom Brady:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...odgers-supports-jags-keeping-bortles-on-bench

"What they are doing has a lot of merit," Rodgers told Dan Pompei, writing for SportsonEarth.com. "Some of these guys who are going to bad teams are expected to play well right away. It's hard to do that. I've seen a couple guys able to do it. (Ben) Roethlisberger was able to do it. He had a team kind of around him. (Joe) Flacco had some success early but he had a team kind of in place. You go to a place that has some pieces and you can have some success early. But if you go to a team that doesn't have the pieces ... it can really mess with your confidence."

http://nesn.com/2013/08/tom-brady-s...mits-he-wasnt-prepared-to-play-in-first-year/

“I was lucky to really have a chance that whole first year to be in a situation where I wasn’t forced to play and lose a bunch of confidence,” Brady said. “I wasn’t prepared to play my first year. That’s all that would have happened, I would’ve gone out and get beat and lost a ton of confidence in what I was doing. I was able to sit there, watch, learn, grow, grow into my body a little bit, improve my throwing mechanics and then my second year I went in there really competing for the backup job and ended up winning it.”

It's a case by case decision that needs to be made based on the player. We just read an article from Joey Harrington about how his confidence was shattered. Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady specifically mention how it can mess with your confidence. You don't throw a guy into the fire before he's ready.

And let's be real, Manning should not have started Day 1. Kurt Warner was the better QB that year.(the team went 5-4 with Warner and 1-6 with Eli) And it's not like it did Eli's development any favors...he struggled his first four years in the league until that Super Bowl run at the end of the 4th year. We don't know how sitting would have affected his development but I doubt he would have done any worse his first 4 years if he had sat his entire rookie year rather than played.

Plus, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady > Peyton and Eli Manning

 

[dieterbrock]

And I'll go with Aaron Rodgers AND Tom Brady:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...odgers-supports-jags-keeping-bortles-on-bench

http://nesn.com/2013/08/tom-brady-s...mits-he-wasnt-prepared-to-play-in-first-year/


It's a case by case decision that needs to be made based on the player. We just read an article from Joey Harrington about how his confidence was shattered. Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady specifically mention how it can mess with your confidence. You don't throw a guy into the fire before he's ready.

And let's be real, Manning should not have started Day 1. Kurt Warner was the better QB that year.(the team went 5-4 with Warner and 1-6 with Eli) And it's not like it did Eli's development any favors...he struggled his first four years in the league until that Super Bowl run at the end of the 4th year. We don't know how sitting would have affected his development but I doubt he would have done any worse his first 4 years if he had sat his entire rookie year rather than played.

Plus, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady > Peyton and Eli Manning

Eli Manning was the far better qb in training camp and pre season that year.
There's no bigger KW fan then me and it was tough to watch him play. Eli was better and KW wasn't close to the same KW
Yes Brady wasn't ready and seeing he was a 6th round pick it was justified. He was fortunate enough to make the team and watch Drew Bledsoe.
And please on Rodgers. He got to watch a hall of fame qb play.
It's really not an arguement.
You draft a kid, you play him. Unless you have a solid incumbent.

 

[jrry32]

It's really not an arguement.
You draft a kid, you play him. Unless you have a solid incumbent.

It really is an argument. I have two first ballot HOFers saying that QBs shouldn't be played their first year if they aren't ready because it can wreck their confidence. You have two HOF QBs saying you should play their first year because of the experience they get. If anything, that shows EXACTLY why it is a case by case determination.

And it has nothing to do with the incumbent starter. It has everything to do with the rookie QB.

Eli Manning was the far better qb in training camp and pre season that year.

And Kurt Warner was the far better regular season QB. We actually can compare performances.

There's no bigger KW fan then me and it was tough to watch him play. Eli was better and KW wasn't close to the same KW

KW wasn't close to KW...but he was still better than rookie Eli.

Yes Brady wasn't ready and seeing he was a 6th round pick it was justified. He was fortunate enough to make the team and watch Drew Bledsoe.

6th round pick or 1st round pick...it's irrelevant once you reach the league as to how good you'll be. Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time. He wasn't ready as a rookie. That speaks volumes. If Tom Brady wasn't ready, why should we expect every single 1st round rookie to be? Does that sound logical to you?

And please on Rodgers. He got to watch a hall of fame qb play.

And...? Favre didn't mentor him. If anything, he probably would have learned more if Jon Kitna or Drew Bledsoe was the QB starting in front of him. Favre resented him and didn't want to train his replacement.

Please on Rodgers...this man is the best QB in the NFL. He's one of the greatest to play the game. He's telling you that you shouldn't play a QB before he's ready. You're willing to ignore that?

It seems awfully suspect to me that you can just ignore two of the greatest QBs to play the game on such a key point.

If the rookie is ready, you play him. If he's not, you sit him. There's no reason to ruin a kid or set his development back because you insist on playing him due to a false bravado or some misguided belief that it can only help him.

It's so weird to me because Kurt Warner freely admits that he wasn't ready to play as a rookie QB. That guy is a HOFer and one of the Rams best QBs of all time (if not the best) and he wasn't ready to play. It took him years before he was ready to play at the NFL level. Why do people think that every first round rookie should be immediately ready to play? Why do you think that it doesn't benefit some guys to sit as a rookie and learn? If it benefited a number of HOF QBs, why are some first round rookies any different? What makes them more prepared? I don't believe every QB needs to sit. But I do believe it benefits some QBs to sit. And we've already seen, plenty of great QBs believe the same thing.