Rams should trade Mannion, not Foles

[Mackeyser]

As Reagan said, "There you go again."

"And if he got very few reps in practice...blah and blah..."Therefore....

You were at every practice right?

"Other than classroom time", which as we all know is meaningless.

I guess you just can't help yourself. :headexplosion:

What, be real? Nope.

Try reading what I'm saying. I never said I was at every practice. I did say it was reported and it was.

Is Mannion going to be traded? OF COURSE NOT. I never said he was. I suggested it because I think having Keenum as a long term veteran backup makes more sense than a QB they've underdeveloped who has no practical experience.

Apparently having veteran experience backing up the QB is a radical notion... let me just get out my tie-dyed shirt and find that Little Red Cookbook...

NO, NO, NO... lets go with the guy with no experience! What could possibly go wrong????

As for the Reagan reference, let me respond by saying about the barriers of belligerence that prevent even discussing trading Mannion:

"Mr Vegas Ram, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!"

 

[Akrasian]

But while Goff is a rookie, it makes sense to have a vet behind him.

And he will. Keenum will be on the team in 2016. But then he will be gone.

You've yet to explain how the Rams keep Keenum after 2016, if he does even okay this season. Why would he resign with the Rams to be a backup, when it would realistically be his chance to go into a situation to start - maybe his last chance? If he signed a couple of year contract to be a backup, he would have little chance to be signed as a starter afterwards - unless Goff or Wentz missed a season. Whereas he could likely sign elsewhere in 2016 for as much or more than the Rams could afford, and get a real shot to win the starting job - if he picked the right opportunity. So unless the Rams franchised him or gave him an insane amount of money to back up, he would be gone after this coming season. Mannion at least has a chance to stay for several years, with another QB drafted to be developed while he was still around.

 

[Warner4Prez]

I understand where you're coming from. The premise of keeping the guy who's had his feet in the fire and knows the offense, or at least has experience running it, makes sense.

I'd just be disappointed. You don't build a winning program with moves like that. Nothing risked, nothing gained or some such nonsense. I get that Mannion is obviously the odd man out at this juncture, and that might be a missed opportunity on Snisher's part. Matt Cassel was always going to be the odd man out in New England, they flipped him for a tidy bonus based on how he looked holding a clipboard. Same with Charlie Whitehurst. Same with Matt Shaub. I'm sure there are others that I can't think of off the top of my head.

I know this offense isn't going to lend itself to QB performances worth going gaga over. If we have a young guy who's big selling points were coachability and pro-readiness (which Mannion's were) and he can show up in the pre-season and run an offense competently, not get hurt and maybe even step in during garbage time once in a while-- we'd have an asset that other teams covet. Hell, we gave up picks for Keenum and Foles.

 

[Akrasian]

Apparently having veteran experience backing up the QB is a radical notion... let me just get out my tie-dyed shirt and find that Little Red Cookbook...

In a league where backup QBs got paid like marginal starters at other positions, it makes sense to have a quality vet backing up. In a league where quality backup QBs get paid like star starters at many other positions (or more) it makes much less sense - and makes FAR more sense to bite the bullet and develop a backup guy.

With what has happened to salaries for raw starters like Osweiler (4 years, $18 million per) or backups not even the quality of Keenum (Daniel - 3 years, $21 million total, $12 million guaranteed) the equation has changed. It is necessary for a team to draft backup QBs, get them what experience they can, and be ready to play them even if they aren't fully ready. It's all the more necessary for a team like the Rams, who have a shortage of draft picks now to fill holes and a bunch of desirable free agents coming due.

I do think also that you are unduly pessimistic about the experience Mannion will have gotten by 2017 anyway. He'll have had two full seasons with at least some reps in practice, though not as many as would be ideal. Before the 2017 season begins he'll have had three full training camps. Unless the guy they get at #1 is injured in the preseason, he will have had time as the #2 guy in practice. Yes, he could use more - that's always the case. But he won't be a callow rookie either.

 

[Mackeyser]

I used to do workflow analysis as part of designing networks.

Something as basic as "how many snaps each QB can get in a CBA restricted 2hr practice" isn't that hard to figure out.

Moreover, because of the realities of how many resources absolutely must be dedicated to Jared Goff to ensure his success as soon as possible, again, using known variables, it's not that hard to do the math. These are not hard problems. What SpaceX did, landing a Stage 1 rocket on a moving platform in the ocean...THAT'S a hard problem.

Thus, I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic based on strong probability. Also, I dunno if Keenum will have a strong market as a starter. He will have a market as a Bridge QB and/or a backup who can win games if need be. I'm saying he's worth it for the Rams to pay that for the security while Goff develops. They'll have to trade Mannion after 2017 anyway because he won't sign after 2018 and if they just let him play out his contract, they lose him like Chase Daniel and then have what in 2018? No Foles (gone after the draft), no Keenum (gone after the season) and no Mannion (gone, traded after 2017).

If backups are too expensive, are they just going to keep spending picks on rookie backup QBs? That's a plan, but it's not a winning contingency plan.

 

[Akrasian]

I used to do workflow analysis as part of designing networks.

Something as basic as "how many snaps each QB can get in a CBA restricted 2hr practice" isn't that hard to figure out. Even

Really? So workflow analysis will tell you how many snaps Mannion would take over the course of a season's worth of practice, so precisely that you will know how many reps he would take on days that one or both of the QBs ahead of him are dinged up and just doing work on the sidelines? Workflow analysis will tell you how many reps Mannion would need in 2+ seasons of being a pro to be ready to fill in during an emergency? It will tell you how much better it is to have a mediocre vet with a little experience as a backup QB, than it is to have 1, 2, or 3 more experienced quality starters at other positions, instead of having to give inexperienced players with less talent playing time at those positions?

Pretty heady stuff, this workflow analysis. Forgive me if I'm skeptical, and think there is a realistic chance that Mannion is ready to be a decent backup or better by the beginning of the 2017 regular season.

 

[Mackeyser]

On a specific day? No. Over the course of a season? It sure can. Minimum number of reps in a season to obtain proficiency, etc? Sure. Same fundamentals as using analytics to determine which shoppers are pregnant by which products they buy (which as it turns out by using some interesting data mining is ridiculously accurate).

Is it foolproof? Of course not. Injuries, outlier performances of either extreme, logistical anomalies and plenty of other things could alter the outcome.

Note: I said I was being realistic based on strong probability. I never said it was guaranteed. I'm not predicting the future. I sure hope not, because I'm seeing some grim things!

And I built something that impressed Steve Jobs using these methods, so it's not hokum. Doubt all you like, but I've already been there and done that and proved the doubters wrong (including PhDs at Apple).

I just wanna have fun talking football, but I can't stop being me and I'm an engineer...