Rams Case Keenum happy with the vote of confidence – even if just for now

[A55VA6]

I don't like any of the QB's we already have on the team

I don't like any of the QB's in FA

I don't like any of the QB's in this years draft

Just move along

Pretty much. I like Wentz, but we would have to trade up to #2 and I don't see it. Keenum is probably our best option..

 

[Merlin]

Case is never going to be an elite QB. But he plays the position intelligently, and does a good job anticipating what the defense is doing. He makes some really good throws too, and places the ball well. In that small sample size he had at the end of the season he made a lot of the players around him look much better than they had all season. Britt for example, and he also put the ball in Tavon's hands on time on many of the short/dump passes this offense seems to specialize in, and that made a big difference. And of course he doesn't make dumb mistakes, he's careful with the ball and avoids turnovers.

I understand why Fish likes him. And I think it goes without saying that the Rams need to draft a QB. But if they enter the season with a rookie holding a clipboard, and a FA and draft addition at wideout I think this offense will be solid. He's not the ideal bridge QB for a rookie, but he might do it better than many expect if they put talent around him.

 

[jrry32]

Not quite what I meant but ok.

If the top 2 QB's are off the board and all that remains is Lynch, Prescott, etc - I'd rather have Keenum start. Unless you want to throw somebody out there who isn't ready..

Yes. I'd rather start someone who might not be ready but is actually capable of great things. Give me Lynch and Cook over Keenum. Give me other QBs available for trade or in FA over Keenum.

This team has no business going into next year planning to start Keenum. It means they failed at their job.

Eerily similar to the wins Bradford got, and you defended him quite fervently.
Nothing has really changed on the O-line (experience/chemistry) and wide receiver (difference maker) front since Bradford left, wouldn't you agree?

Wins from Bradford's final year here (2013):
2-14 - 24 points
4-12 - 27 points
10-6 - 27 points

So no, I wouldn't call that eerily similar.

Quite a lot has changed. I'd take our 2015 WR group over our past groups. And there was a guy named Todd Gurley.

 

[Tron]

Case was 3-1 in the last 4 games.

He had 4 td's and 1 int, which equates to 16 td's and 4 int's in a full 16 games. That's bad even for a rookie.not the int part but the td part. As I have said before, if Fisher doesn't make a big move for a new QB I am done with him. I like case, but not as our starter.

 

[RAMSinLA]

3-1 as a starter....it's his job to lose and I think he will keep it. We will be very happy with Case.

 

[-X-]

Wins from Bradford's final year here (2013):
2-14 - 24 points
4-12 - 27 points
10-6 - 27 points

So no, I wouldn't call that eerily similar.

Quite a lot has changed. I'd take our 2015 WR group over our past groups. And there was a guy named Todd Gurley.

What about the 7, 11, 15, and 24 points in his losses (since we're assigning wins and losses to QBs).
C'mon, man.

And the years before that? "He" averaged less than 18 points per game in all of 2012.

Very similar to your complaints with Keenum's offensive production. And sure, I'd take our wide receivers over past receivers too, but let's not pretend he didn't have Danario, Lloyd, Clayton, Amendola and the same group in 2013 of Austin, Givens, Cook and Bailey. The only thing that's been upgraded is Britt. I think you know that the point I'm making is about the offensive supporting cast, including the O-line which you failed to mention. And why are we not giving Keenum a pass for playing for two coordinators (in the same year no less), but that was a staple of the Bradford defense? Again, I don't think Keenum is the long term solution, but I don't think you're giving him a fair shake either considering he has/had the same production hindrances Bradford was saddled with.

 

[jrry32]

What about the 7, 11, 15, and 24 points in his losses (since we're assigning wins and losses to QBs).
C'mon, man.

And the years before that? "He" averaged less than 18 points per game in all of 2012.

Very similar to your complaints with Keenum's offensive production. And sure, I'd take our wide receivers over past receivers too, but let's not pretend he didn't have Danario, Lloyd, Clayton, Amendola and the same group in 2013 of Austin, Givens, Cook and Bailey. The only thing that's been upgraded is Britt. I think you know that the point I'm making is about the offensive supporting cast, including the O-line which you failed to mention. And why are we not giving Keenum a pass for playing for two coordinators (in the same year no less), but that was a staple of the Bradford defense? Again, I don't think Keenum is the long term solution, but I don't think you're giving him a fair shake either considering he has/had the same production hindrances Bradford was saddled with.

What about them? You specifically said that it was eerily similar to the WINS that Bradford got.

I'm not assigning wins and losses to anyone. I responded to the point you made.

Were any of us content with 18 points per game in 2012? But the point you seem to be missing is that Keenum played a cupcake schedule with the defense and running game backing him and he didn't produce. And the offense didn't produce under him.

Bringing up something utterly irrelevant (me advocating for Bradford in the past) doesn't change that. It doesn't address that point. It's a way of avoiding addressing that point by changing the topic of the discussion.

Keenum's production sucked. The Tampa Bay game was the only game he produced in. Keenum's performance on the field wasn't any better. I said this over and over again heading into the SF game but people were too hyped up because the Rams were on a winning streak. And then came the SF game where Keenum showed no ability to consistently move the offense or put the ball in the end-zone against one of the worst teams in football.

I don't know what the rest of you are seeing. The guy avoided turnovers. That's about the only thing he offered us as a starter. He's not a starting caliber QB. The simple answer is that Case Keenum isn't good enough unless people actually think getting 150 yards and a TD a game out of the QB position is acceptable.

 

[jrry32]

3-1 as a starter....it's his job to lose and I think he will keep it. We will be very happy with Case.

3-2 as a starter with 4 of the 5 games coming against teams with losing records. In 4 of those 5 games, the offense failed to score 20+ points. And Keenum failed to average 200 passing yards or 1 passing TD per game over those 5 games.

Basically, the guy played a cupcake schedule and still did next to nothing besides avoiding turning the ball over. That's not a starting caliber QB.

 

[-X-]

What about them? You specifically said that it was eerily similar to the WINS that Bradford got.

I'm not assigning wins and losses to anyone. I responded to the point you made.

Were any of us content with 18 points per game in 2012? But the point you seem to be missing is that Keenum played a cupcake schedule with the defense and running game backing him and he didn't produce. And the offense didn't produce under him.

Bringing up something utterly irrelevant (me advocating for Bradford in the past) doesn't change that. It doesn't address that point. It's a way of avoiding addressing that point by changing the topic of the discussion.

Keenum's production sucked. The Tampa Bay game was the only game he produced in. Keenum's performance on the field wasn't any better. I said this over and over again heading into the SF game but people were too hyped up because the Rams were on a winning streak. And then came the SF game where Keenum showed no ability to consistently move the offense or put the ball in the end-zone against one of the worst teams in football.

I don't know what the rest of you are seeing. The guy avoided turnovers. That's about the only thing he offered us as a starter. He's not a starting caliber QB. The simple answer is that Case Keenum isn't good enough unless people actually think getting 150 yards and a TD a game out of the QB position is acceptable.

I can't believe you're not tapping into the irony here. Aside from that, I think you know the point I'm making, and I think you know why. Cherry picking Bradford's wins from 2013 and leaving out every single other win he had since he came into the league doesn't strengthen your case about Keenum's "wins" being unspectacular. The Rams haven't been an offensive power house since 2006 (if even), and you're using "Keenum's" point totals as some sort of evidence that he's not the guy? It's disingenuous. Again, I don't think he's the guy either, but that's just a poor argument. I brought up Bradford as a means to illustrate that he didn't do, significantly, any better (or worse) than Keenum on this team, and I did so to point out that it's not a point-friendly offense that either are in or have been in.

Don't fixate on the idea that people are saying "he's the guy." We all know he's not. But if we have to go into the season with him as the starter (because he earned it in TC), then it's not going to be a disaster if they simply upgrade the receivers a little bit and the offensive line sticks together and continues to jell. Making a case that Keenum isn't the answer, and banking on a rookie QB to come in and turn this offense around is at best a 50/50 proposition. It's not like rookie QBs in the first round have been a 100% sure thing over the past 50 years. But I do agree that we need better. Maybe a move up to one of the top QBs, maybe a free agent, maybe both. But open competition in TC is what I think we all wanna see. And if Keenum emerges from that battle as the clear favorite, then there would be a reason for that.

If I've learned one thing, it's that we can't use *stats* on this Rams team as an indicator of anything.
They haven't been favorable for any QB here in over a decade.

 

[jrry32]

I can't believe you're not tapping into the irony here. Aside from that, I think you know the point I'm making, and I think you know why. Cherry picking Bradford's wins from 2013 and leaving out every single other win he had since he came into the league doesn't strengthen your case about Keenum's "wins" being unspectacular. The Rams haven't been an offensive power house since 2006 (if even), and you're using "Keenum's" point totals as some sort of evidence that he's not the guy? It's disingenuous. Again, I don't think he's the guy either, but that's just a poor argument. I brought up Bradford as a means to illustrate that he didn't do, significantly, any better (or worse) than Keenum on this team, and I did so to point out that it's not a point-friendly offense that either are in or have been in.

Then make that your argument. Not that I defended Bradford. Bradford isn't on this team any more. The Rams moved on. Whether I was right or wrong to defend him is no longer an issue relevant to the team today. What is relevant to the team today is Case Keenum's place on this team. And that place isn't as the starting QB.

Point-friendly offense or not, he played a cupcake schedule and did very little against it.

Don't fixate on the idea that people are saying "he's the guy." We all know he's not. But if we have to go into the season with him as the starter (because he earned it in TC), then it's not going to be a disaster if they simply upgrade the receivers a little bit and the offensive line sticks together and continues to jell. Making a case that Keenum isn't the answer, and banking on a rookie QB to come in and turn this offense around is at best a 50/50 proposition. It's not like rookie QBs in the first round have been a 100% sure thing over the past 50 years. But I do agree that we need better. Maybe a move up to one of the top QBs, maybe a free agent, maybe both. But open competition in TC is what I think we all wanna see. And if Keenum emerges from that battle as the clear favorite, then there would be a reason for that.

I disagree. Starting Keenum will be a disaster. He's not a starting caliber QB and will keep this team from achieving its true potential.

I'll bank on a 50/50 proposition over banking on a losing proposition.

If Keenum emerges from the competition as the top QB, Houston, we have a problem.

If I've learned one thing, it's that we can't use *stats* on this Rams team as an indicator of anything.
They haven't been favorable for any QB here in over a decade.

We don't have to use stats. They're simply convenient. I've spent a lot of time in the past laying out why Keenum isn't good enough. Independent of stats, he isn't good enough because of his performance on the field. He's not a starting caliber QB.

 

[-X-]

I disagree. Starting Keenum will be a disaster. He's not a starting caliber QB and will keep this team from achieving its true potential

And I disagree with that.
That's where we are. The rest is noise.

And I made my case in this thread already.

 

[jrry32]

And I disagree with that.
That's where we are. The rest is noise.

And I made my case in this thread already.

As did I.

 

[jap]

Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[shaunpinney]

If Keenum IS the guy, then I'll get behind him, as I'm sure everyone will - if he's the starting Qb, then he has time to get his head around the offence, how are we going to be playing in 2016? We're not going to be passing it all over the shop are we? The facts are:

1. We need to be scoring more points on offence, we need to be scoring more TDs.
2. We need to be converting more 1st downs.

I really don't care how we do those, give me 4 yard dink and dunk passes all day if you have to, throw long bombs down field, let Gurley hurdle his way down field, I really don't care BUT keep our offence on the field and our defence fresh.

I like Mannion, I think he could be a legit starting QB, but as I've said in other threads I do have concern at how this regime handles and develops QBs, we're awesome in developing the D side of things, and RBs, we're not too bad on the O-line front either, but when it comes to the Wrs and QBs we're a bit pants really.

If Keenum can get a chemistry thing going on with our receivers then I'll be happy, is he the QB of the future? No, I don't think so, But I'm glad they've come out and said Keenum is the guy (for now).

 

[-X-]

As did I.

I know. I was responding to the part where you told me to make a case.

 

[Loyal]

So if we had a Dez Bryant clone drafted this year, how good would Keenums numbers look? How many more TD's would be scored?

 

[-X-]

So if we had a Dez Bryant clone drafted this year, how good would Keenums numbers look? How many more TD's would be scored?

So many.

 

[Roman Snow]

View: https://twitter.com/RamsONDEMAND/status/705924045829582848

Thanks for the effort linking all the videos X.

 

[-X-]

Thanks for the effort linking all the videos X.

Insufficient praise.
I also made the videos, so pour it on.

 

[Roman Snow]

Insufficient praise.
I also made the videos, so pour it on.

:homercrawl: :mrburns: