Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Why get rid of Keenum

September 23, 2016 03:40PM
Quote
zn
Quote
LMU93
I don't think it's a matter of getting rid of him. I think they just ideally would like it if Mannion could become their #2. Depending on how long Keenum plays this season- and how well- plus what the QB market is in the spring he may or may not get interest elsewhere. Shaun Hill got 2 years/$6.5M from Minnesota after his year with the Rams. So who knows.

You want Keenum as the #2 because if he stays he signs a Shaun Hill contract (which basically is what he's getting now). Mannion in contrast would get more, and he;s not going to last past 2018. So if you keep Mannion you already have to be grooming his replacement. If you want to replace Mannion (because if he's any good he will not be staying with the Rams for the kind of money you would give Keenum) then you have to draft the guy next year.

Plus of the 2 going forward, as a #2, Keenum would have game experience and more years on him. A far better #2.

All this depends, as I predict, that Keenum settles down and comes through well enough to keep him. To me people right now are flipping out over the SF game, while I am seeing him as playing his 8th game coming up not his 3rd. (BTW I don't put the SF game on Keenum...at the stage it was the offense was not equipped to take back a lead when behind. That;s just being realistic. Given that I put the SF game on the defense.)

Assuming HE comes through, what Mannion is right now is insurance...until 2018...in case something happens to Goff.

...

There are a couple of premises here which I believe are either faulty or shouldn’t be assumed. So I’m having problems with your conclusion.

Assumptions 1 and 2: Keenum signs a Shaun Hill type contract & Mannion would get more –

If Keenum settles down and comes through well enough to keep him, and if we accept that he’s a far better #2 than Mannion, and given his superior experience, it shouldn’t be assumed that he would sign a Hill contract or that Mannion would get more.

You actually just made the perfect argument for why Keenum would get more. I wouldn’t be surprised if Keenum got a Chase Daniel contract. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if Keenum does settle down and perform as well as he did last year, he will get quite a bit more than what he signed for this year.

Also, why would Mannion get more if you’re saying that Keenum is a far better #2?

Assumption #3: If you keep Mannion, you have to draft a replacement next year (2017) –

Mannion is under contract through the end of 2018. What’s to stop them from waiting until the 2018 draft to find a replacement? They won’t HAVE to draft a replacement in 2017.

Assumption #4: A Hill caliber #2 is better than a Daniels caliber backup -

Who’s to say that the Rams want to go with a cheap Hill caliber backup? I would think that they want to go with a younger QB who projects to be better long-term even if that does cost a bit more.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Okay, so, Goff is number 2 this week again

GreatRamNTheSky1050September 22, 2016 12:33PM

  I think you're probably right, Grits.

JamesJM470September 22, 2016 05:23PM

  Re: I think you're probably right, Grits.

David Deacon392September 23, 2016 02:12AM

  I don't think we can look at it that way.

RockRam434September 23, 2016 03:40AM

  Yeah, I agree with all that...

max458September 23, 2016 03:57AM

  Why get rid of Keenum

Hazlet Hacksaw390September 23, 2016 04:14AM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

LMU93406September 23, 2016 04:45AM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

zn384September 23, 2016 05:19AM

  I can see advantages both ways

LMU93399September 23, 2016 05:25AM

  Re: I can see advantages both ways

zn367September 23, 2016 05:31AM

  Re: I can see advantages both ways

LMU93358September 23, 2016 06:03AM

  I sure hope Mannion is the plan

moklerman369September 24, 2016 02:11AM

  Yes, the money matters.

RockRam357September 23, 2016 03:56PM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

dzrams398September 23, 2016 03:40PM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

zn345September 23, 2016 05:05PM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

dzrams276September 23, 2016 11:46PM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

zn386September 24, 2016 04:10AM

  Re: We did not stick with Davis

BumRap330September 24, 2016 07:14PM

  after 3 consecutive complete collapse games

zn361September 24, 2016 08:27PM

  What are we to assume?

moklerman350September 25, 2016 12:01AM

  Compare that to other backups

LesBaker302September 25, 2016 06:26AM

  +1

zn326September 25, 2016 07:28AM

  Re: Compare that to other backups

moklerman310September 25, 2016 08:18AM

  zn, you've resisted ascribing win rates to QBs

ArizonaRamFan336September 25, 2016 06:14AM

  and I still do

zn333September 25, 2016 07:17AM

  Davis could not make many of the throws

Rams_81403September 25, 2016 07:35AM

  I agree he is a keeper

LesBaker256September 24, 2016 04:38AM

  Re: Why get rid of Keenum

zn305September 24, 2016 03:56PM

  No rush to get rid of Keenum but

Rams_81225September 25, 2016 07:38AM

  Re: No rush to get rid of Keenum but

zn312September 25, 2016 08:25AM

  Re: Okay, so, Goff is number 2 this week again

SoCalRAMatic367September 23, 2016 05:02AM

  Now, Fisher isn't saying who #2 is for Tampa...

max377September 23, 2016 12:07PM

  Man, why can't we have one of those teams....?

NewMexicoRam450September 24, 2016 01:06PM

  Re: Man, why can't we have one of those teams....?

zn351September 24, 2016 01:19PM