One of today's media stories said the following. Do you agree?
--- "I wouldn’t have objected to a decision to yank Foles and go with the No. 2 quarterback Case Keenum. The Rams required a shakeup, and the somewhat frantic Keenum can at least run around a little, and maybe get a defense scrambling out of position.
Of course Rams coach Jeff Fisher would have none of that.
When asked if he considered making a change, Fisher said: “No. That’s my choice, but no. I’m just going to look at it. We have to play better around him (Foles). I’ll look and see how he played, but he was prepared. He had a great practice this week and he missed a couple of throws and we had a couple of drops. We’ll look at it, but at this point, no.”
The door was left open a crack, but I’d be surprised if Fisher benched Foles.
The main reason is obvious: Foles is an extension of Fisher.
By pulling Foles, Fisher would be acknowledging his own failure — at least up to the point of the benching. Maybe Foles would regroup and return and play better. But sitting Foles, if only for a while, draws attention to something unpleasant: that Foles isn’t the QB that Fisher envisioned. A misjudgment if you will.
And before Foles even played a regular-season game, the Rams gave him a contract extension that could keep him in place through 2017. The deal included $14 million guaranteed.---
