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

[Lurker]

Journeymen never win Super Bowls.

Except for Rich Gannon.
And Trent Dilfer.
And Doug Williams.
And Jeff Hostetler.
And Mark Rypien.
And Brad Johnson.

You forgot Kurt Warner...sort of...

 

[-X-]

I <3 this thread. I don't see the Rams going 14-2 next year, hell I would be pretty happy with 8-8, but I just don't understand all of the CK bashing. All the kid has done is play his guts out in a moving target of an offense...and win some games. How about we get behind the idea of our QB having an entire off season to learn a new offense? How about we give that same QB the benefit of the doubt that he can improve with a semblance of stability and a coaching staff behind him? How about we give Case freaking Keenum a fraction of the love we gave Samuel freaking Bradford?

How about we stop finding ways to tear down players that pour their heart out on the field to achieve what we fans seem to feel is owed to us?? Lets start thinking about how we can win with this team plus some draft talent (ahem...Treadwell). I swear it has been a millennium since we have been in this position.

 

[-X-]

You forgot Kurt Warner...sort of...

True.

Sort of.

 

[RamDino]

Journeymen never win Super Bowls.

Except for Rich Gannon.
And Trent Dilfer.
And Doug Williams.
And Jeff Hostetler.
And Mark Rypien.
And Brad Johnson.

And 40-year old Payton Manning!

 

[dieterbrock]

Heck I support Keenum AND I want the Rams to move up and draft Goff/Wentz.
I just don't see where there is an option of an "upgrade" that holds water. I don't think Daniel, Fitzpatrick, Osweiler, Glennon etc are obvious "upgrades" that would make us any better than Case.

 

[Akrasian]

Except his 2-0 with Houston came despite him playing worse than he did when they went 0-8. And his improvement with the Rams is illusory at best. He's the same exact player.

But sure, let's cherry-pick what games to consider and then call him a winner...despite him having lost twice as many games as he's won as a starter and his inability to help the Rams beat Baltimore and San Francisco in 2015 despite both of them picking in the top 7.

You're the one who brought up his record as a starter without any context. In fact, except for his rookie season on a team that was widely considered at the time to have given up, he has a winning record - which you had ignored.

 

[dieterbrock]

You're the one who brought up his record as a starter without any context. In fact, except for his rookie season on a team that was widely considered at the time to have given up, he has a winning record - which you had ignored.

I watched him play in that 0-8 season and he played really well at times. Many of those losses they had the lead in the 2nd half and the D let them down

 

[Akrasian]

Undoubtedly. What he has greatly improved on are things like his interception rate and his sack rate - i.e., he has become a much better game manager than he was as a rookie, rather than trying to do too much to win and contributing to a loss instead. And while it would be nice to have a QB who can be spectacular - and the Rams will continue to look for one - having a QB who doesn't throw a lot of interceptions, who doesn't take needless sacks, goes a long way to helping a team with a good rushing attack and a good defense to win. Now that Keenum has shown he can do that well, he may learn to expand a bit, and make more big plays without an increase in mistakes.

 

[jrry32]

Don't stray too far from the comparisons. I'm not comparing the two in any manner other than how they got to become full-fledged starters. And I'd also recommend you take notice of the HUGE disparity between the talent Warner got to work with and the talent Keenum is currently working with. My only point was that Warner found himself in situations where he wasn't recognized as starting talent until it became time for him to get it by default.

Warner got his shot and made the most of it. Case got his shot and didn't play well.

There are plenty of QBs that find themselves in situations where they don't start for years. That wasn't my point at all. My point was that Keenum has gotten plenty of opportunities to start and he's not good enough. His play on the field is my issue with him. Not a lack of opportunities.

That's a good point. I could have done that. I had no ulterior motive behind using 2012 by "masking" anything as you're suggesting. I used 2012 because it was Bradford's first start in Fisher's offense. As was 2015, Keenum's first start in Fisher's offense. But I'll put them up as comparison anyway to stay objective, and to dispel the myth you're advancing that I'm trying to skew stats in my favor.

BRADFORD

KEENUM

Same completion%, Bradford had a higher TD%, same Y/A, same AY/A, roughly the same QB Rating.and Keenum still has a lower sack%.
Bradford had higher yards per game, by a lot, but we'll cover that next.

Keenum was here for most of 2014. This was his first start but not his first year with the Rams. And the numbers say it all. Bradford did that with no running game, worse protection, and worse WRs/TEs and a defense that was struggling. It's a night and day difference. Frankly, there's no comparison between Bradford and Keenum. Bradford is far better. And that's troubling.

Do me a favor and relent with the "you conveniently left out" garbage. People did that to us all the time when we were trying to argue that Bradford was a good QB in a bad offense, and you didn't like it then. Don't try to spin that around on me now. Bradford had to throw the ball a lot more because he didn't have a RB in 2012 OR 2013. It would be counter-intuitive to a Jeff Fisher offense to have a stud like Gurley and put the burden on Keenum by throwing the ball anyway. Bradford threw a lot of underneath stuff to supplement the lack of a run game, and you know this.

Come on, dude. Don't try to sell me this story. Bradford would have thrown it less if we had Gurley but he still would have thrown it far more often than Keenum did. The Rams didn't want Keenum throwing. And it was obvious why.

When did the Rams play a hard schedule with Bradford during his wins? His opponents in his wins went 16-32 in 2013. Keenum's opponents in his wins went 23-25. That's what you wanted me to focus on, right? 2013? Keenum did very little because they asked him to do very little.

Seems very disingenuous to only count his opponents in wins. Why not overall? Keenum's numbers are majorly bolstered by the win at Seattle despite him doing very little in that game.

You're right about one thing. The numbers don't paint a pretty picture for any QB in the Rams' offense. Not Bradford and not Keenum. Which is why rotating QB after QB after QB after QB in and out of this stoic offense is going to accomplish exactly nothing. Peppering the offense with playmakers who can take over a game is going to go a lot further. Your assessment of Keenum, despite what you think about your scouting talents, is short-sighted because you're discounting the impact the other 10 guys on offense have in relation to a QB's production. And that's what's most baffling to me. It was your main source of contention with people who pigeon-holed Bradford as a jag. And here you are doing the same exact thing with Keenum. I'll compile enough evidence to make my case about Keenum when I get some free time. Video evidence. I don't expect you to give it any credence whatsoever, but I'm going to do it anyway for anyone that's following along here.

I'm sorry but that's not the problem. We're not rotating QB after QB because the offense is so bad. We're rotating QB after QB because our QBs have been terrible since Bradford went down.

We need to inject talent into this offense...but putting nice rims on a junker with a terrible engine doesn't do anything for your car. The QB is the engine that drives the offense. Our engine is the worst in the NFL right now. Surrounding Keenum with playmakers doesn't fix the problem. It is simply putting lipstick on a pig.

Get a talented QB AND add playmakers to the offense. That's how you create a great offense. Adding a bunch of playmakers that will only be held back by Keenum isn't going to solve this team's problems or make them a real contender. Look at the Texans. I don't want to be in their situation. Yea, they made the playoffs but were exposed as pretenders because their backup caliber QB shit the bed. Now, they're picking too low to draft a talented QB (arguably) so they dished out insane money to a mediocre QB in FA.

You're also not gaining any ground with me on the Bradford comparisons. I didn't argue with people who called Bradford a "JAG" because he was the Rams QB. I argued with them because I thought Bradford could be a legitimate starting QB. That was my assessment of Bradford. My assessment of Keenum is that he's not a starting caliber QB. I felt the same way about Austin Davis.

You put a legitimate starting caliber QB on this team (or a guy I believe to be that) and I'll defend him. But I don't just defend guys to defend guys. If I don't believe in you, I'm not defending you.

 

[rdlkgliders]

lets not get sidetracked from what I think the point is here. "Ruin" is a wee bit overboard.......doncha think

 

[jrry32]

And yet you wanted the Rams to sign Chase Daniel? Talk about the ultimate journeyman. What's that? His fourth team and he's thrown how many reg season passes? Good grief

Yep. I saw him as a better player. But his early career path was not really any different from Case's. Difference between the two is that he hasn't been in a situation where he got to start a significant number of games. But yes, I'll take him over Case. I think he's a better player.

How many regular season passes would Keenum have thrown if he were Drew Brees's backup? Or Alex Smith's?

You're the one who brought up his record as a starter without any context. In fact, except for his rookie season on a team that was widely considered at the time to have given up, he has a winning record - which you had ignored.

Yea, I brought up his starting record after someone called him a "winner." He's not. Should I add "context" by cherry-picking what games to count?

I didn't ignore anything. I simply didn't pick and choose what to count and not to count.(i.e. cherry-picking)

P.S. He wasn't a rookie that year.

Journeymen never win Super Bowls.

Except for Rich Gannon.
And Trent Dilfer.
And Doug Williams.
And Jeff Hostetler.
And Mark Rypien.
And Brad Johnson.

So we're accepting a journeyman because a few won Super Bowls? The most recent being well over a decade ago.

 

[jrry32]

I <3 this thread. I don't see the Rams going 14-2 next year, hell I would be pretty happy with 8-8, but I just don't understand all of the CK bashing. All the kid has done is play his guts out in a moving target of an offense...and win some games. How about we get behind the idea of our QB having an entire off season to learn a new offense? How about we give that same QB the benefit of the doubt that he can improve with a semblance of stability and a coaching staff behind him? How about we give Case freaking Keenum a fraction of the love we gave Samuel freaking Bradford?

How about we stop finding ways to tear down players that pour their heart out on the field to achieve what we fans seem to feel is owed to us?? Lets start thinking about how we can win with this team plus some draft talent (ahem...Treadwell). I swear it has been a millennium since we have been in this position.

Has nothing to do with Keenum as a person. It's not personal. I don't think he's a good enough QB. That simple. I want to win. I'm with you on that. And I think the #1 obstacle to that is our QB position.

 

[DaveFan'51]

OFF Topic:
Every time I see the name ' Bleacher Report' I think of this book that was always talked about in Elementary School, But I never had the opportunity to read. " Under The Bleachers" by Seamore Butts!

 

[Ramatik]

Didn't Warner play the prior year? I think he did before the Magic 99 season and he looked like crap.

Whatever. I'm becoming a Keenum fan now because of all crybabies.

 

[Angry Ram]

My point was that Keenum has gotten plenty of opportunities to start and he's not good enough. His play on the field is my issue with him. Not a lack of opportunities.

Except his play says otherwise. IDK what more you want, if you consider Case's overall starting career his numbers are there. It's obvious the losses in Houston weren't entirely all on him. The guy has also gotten better in the time he isn't throwing INTs or fumbling left and right like Nick Foles and Austin Davis were doing.

The Rams didn't want Keenum throwing. And it was obvious why.

Except in his games he played in 2015, Case threw the ball 26, 22, 17, 22, 37 times. Todd Gurley in those games (minus the last one)...25, 16, 21, 19 rushing attempts. Tre Mason vs. SF had 18 carries. What's really obvious is if anything, the Rams were trying to go more balanced vs. your claim on them not wanting him to throw.

Keenum's numbers are majorly bolstered by the win at Seattle despite him doing very little in that game.

Except that's not true. That game might be the most memorable considering the circumstances, but his best game #s-wise was 234 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT against TB. The shitchicken game was actually his lowest total in his limited action.

We're not rotating QB after QB because the offense is so bad. We're rotating QB after QB because our QBs have been terrible since Bradford went down.

Which is why Case should keep playing and finally have some continuity there. Unless the team feels there's an obvious upgrade, don't change shit b/c of change.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

What the heck happened to this thread and what does the title even mean now?

.

 

[-X-]

Warner got his shot and made the most of it. Case got his shot and didn't play well.

There are plenty of QBs that find themselves in situations where they don't start for years. That wasn't my point at all. My point was that Keenum has gotten plenty of opportunities to start and he's not good enough. His play on the field is my issue with him. Not a lack of opportunities.

Yes. Warner got his shot at the end of 1998 and was sent to Amsterdam. Remember the talent level of the 1998 Rams? lol. He couldn't even beat out Tony Banks. And quite frankly, if you're going to keep discounting the just SICK talent that was on the 1999 Rams offense, then you're being extremely disingenuous.

Keenum was here for most of 2014. This was his first start but not his first year with the Rams. And the numbers say it all. Bradford did that with no running game, worse protection, and worse WRs/TEs and a defense that was struggling. It's a night and day difference. Frankly, there's no comparison between Bradford and Keenum. Bradford is far better. And that's troubling.

Keenum was here for "most" of 2014? He had zero camp time with this team. Zero. I can't even believe you're going this route. It's so unlike you. The numbers say exactly what I've been telling you they say. No QB can tear it up (not even a rookie in this class) unless or until we improve the offense. It's that simple.

Come on, dude. Don't try to sell me this story. Bradford would have thrown it less if we had Gurley but he still would have thrown it far more often than Keenum did. The Rams didn't want Keenum throwing. And it was obvious why.

And you know this how? Seriously. You're just throwing shit against the wall now. I can play this game too. If Bradford had played the last 5 games of 2015, he would have done almost exactly the same as Keenum.

Seems very disingenuous to only count his opponents in wins. Why not overall? Keenum's numbers are majorly bolstered by the win at Seattle despite him doing very little in that game.

Are you serious right now? Every time you make a counter argument, I supply you with stats and information to accommodate you. And now you're moving the goal posts yet again? Would you like to count the overall W/L record of both Bradford and Keenum's opponents in ALL of the games they ever played? You said Keenum had a cupcake schedule and he didn't. I showed you that Bradford did. Why are you going down a rabbit hole only so you can pull Keenum down with you?

Get a talented QB AND add playmakers to the offense. That's how you create a great offense. Adding a bunch of playmakers that will only be held back by Keenum isn't going to solve this team's problems or make them a real contender. Look at the Texans. I don't want to be in their situation. Yea, they made the playoffs but were exposed as pretenders because their backup caliber QB crap the bed. Now, they're picking too low to draft a talented QB (arguably) so they dished out insane money to a mediocre QB in FA.

I'd be fine with that too. I've never ruled out getting a clear upgrade to Keenum AND adding playmakers to the offense. But what're we gonna do that with? Two picks in the 2016 draft after unloading everything to move into the top 2, and more picks the following year? I just reject your assessment of Keenum's talent. I really don't think you watched him closely enough, because he's not the garbage you're making him out to be.

You don't want to be like the Texans who got into the playoffs because Hoyer had a shitty game? You mean like when Brett Favre got the Packers into the playoffs and threw 7 interceptions against the Rams? That Texans TEAM got into the playoffs largely because DeAndre Hopkins had 192 targets for 11 TDs. The entire Rams receiving corps (TEs included) combined for 11 TDs last year. They used FOUR quarterbacks last year, and Hopkins kept on producing. We should be so cursed to be like that team with a receiver like that.

So we're accepting a journeyman because a few won Super Bowls? The most recent being well over a decade ago.

Yeah. Why not? Is 6 journeymen QBs winning the SB not enough proof that it's possible? This isn't a team that's going to win the SB on offense no matter how much you wish it to be true. This team is going to get into the playoffs, and win, ONLY on the strength of the defense and run game and play-action. Unless they do a complete 180 and fill the team with enough playmakers to turn it into a Coryell offense.

 

[-X-]

.

What the heck happened to this thread and what does the title even mean now?

.

All of this QB stuff was in the Bleacher Report thread about Gurley, so I moved it to its own thread.

 

[jrry32]

Except his play says otherwise. IDK what more you want, if you consider Case's overall starting career his numbers are there. It's obvious the losses in Houston weren't entirely all on him. The guy has also gotten better in the time he isn't throwing INTs or fumbling left and right like Nick Foles and Austin Davis were doing.

I don't know how you're confused about what more I want. I want a legitimate starting QB.

What more do I want? 4000+ yards, 30 TDs, and a 100 QB Rating. But I'd settle for less. I'm not, however, settling for less than a legitimate starting QB. Case ain't that.

And his numbers are poor. It's great that he's cut down the INTs but he also doesn't even routinely throw for 200 yards. That's a problem in today's NFL. I'm not a numbers guy but the play on the field explains why the Rams don't trust him enough to let him sling the ball more.

The losses in Houston weren't entirely on him and the wins in St. Louis weren't entirely on him either. But people want to talk record. So I talked record.

Except in his games he played in 2015, Case threw the ball 26, 22, 17, 22, 37 times. Todd Gurley in those games (minus the last one)...25, 16, 21, 19 rushing attempts. Tre Mason vs. SF had 18 carries. What's really obvious is if anything, the Rams were trying to go more balanced vs. your claim on them not wanting him to throw.

The Pittsburgh Steelers were 16th out of 32 teams in passes attempted this year. They attempted 590 passes. That's about 37 passes per game. Case averaged 25 attempts per game. That's nothing in today's NFL. The Rams weren't throwing the ball. In 4 of his 5 starts, we ran the ball more than we passed it. That's not a normal thing in today's NFL. The Rams took the ball out of Keenum's hands. And it's easy to understand why.

Except that's not true. That game might be the most memorable considering the circumstances, but his best game #s-wise was 234 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT against TB. The shitchicken game was actually his lowest total in his limited action.

What I said was 100% true. I wasn't talking about Keenum's passing stats. Read over X's post again and you'll see what I was responding to.

Which is why Case should keep playing and finally have some continuity there. Unless the team feels there's an obvious upgrade, don't change crap b/c of change.

Kind of ironic that you would make that point because I was thinking the opposite. Seems like you're arguing for continuity for the sake of continuity. Case isn't good enough. I'm not advocating for change for change's sake. I'm advocating for change because there are better options out there.

 

[-X-]

What more do I want? 4000+ yards, 30 TDs, and a 100 QB Rating. But I'd settle for less. I'm not, however, settling for less than a legitimate starting QB. Case ain't that.

In this offense.

You want those numbers.
In this offense.

You know who our coach is, yeah? Fisher has had exactly zero years with a 4000 yard passer, and exactly zero years with 30 passing TDs.
You have to come to grips with the fact that this team will win with the run/defense/play-action.