Re: Why get rid of Keenum

Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams

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.

I did assume that the young possible starter (SM) would get more on the market than the older and obvious #2 type (CK),

CK would not get more in my estimation because he could never be anything BUT a #2.

I said CK would be a far better #2 type for the Rams because he has the experience (including coming off the bench), knows the system, and is a very smart "mentor" type for any #1. Mannion, in contrast, I was assuming would draw interest as a #1 (or at least as competition for a #1, like they did in Seattle with Flynn and Wilson). .

You draft a replacement in 2017 for a Mannion leaving after 2018 because you don't want a rookie or one year to replace him when you could have a more experienced 2-year. Plus of course IF they kept Mannion as the #2 they would need a #3 anyway...unless they signed a #2-type vet, who will not want to be a #3, or you pick up someone's castoff, in which case why not just draft a guy.

So if you're going to go with a cheap Hill type, since that's Keenum's range anyway, why not just keep Keenum. Who yes I assume would get Hill-type money on the market. And again, if you sign a new vet #2 type why would he want to be a #3 behind Mannion? Moreover, if you let CK go, why would you want Mannion as a #3 when he already knows the offense and put him behind a newcomer who doesn't?

I thought it through, believe me.


...

I get your rationale, but still question the assumptions.

I don't think Mannion has shown enough to be thought of as a possible starter. He couldn't beat out Keenum either so there is really nothing to indicate that he's more than a #2. So I don't buy the assumption he'll draw interest as a starter. He would need to play and show well before that happens.

I don't see an issue with having a one year QB being the backup. That's exactly what the Rams have this year when Mannion is the #2. Also, there are several teams that only carry two QBs. If you have a young, solid #2 such as Mannion, I see no need for a #3 or a vet.

I'm very skeptical they will get Keenum in the under $4 mil. price range again especially if he has as good of a year as you feel will happen. He'll command $5-$7 mil. as a very good backup and borderline starter.

My suggestion is, don't sign a vet #2 type and don't have Mannion as a #3. Just keep him for the next few years as an inexpensive #2.

There was never a competition. The more experienced veteran was going to start until Goff was ready. That was the plan and anything Mannion showed was going to be gravy. Keenum would have had to screw up the preseason for the thought of inserting Mannion to even enter their minds.

Meanwhile how much did either Ostweiler or Matt Flynn show to get consideration when their contracts were up? By the end of 2018, if he keeps showing things, yes he could get consideration for that easily. I noted it could easily be a competition situation like with Flynn and Wilson. Or I suppose it could be a Case Daniels style "big exception to the rules" signing. Either way, he is going to cost more to keep, and chances are, would not want to be kept. I sincerely doubt he would be happy being Goff's #2 his entire career. The preventer would be if he regressed.

Okay they would have to draft a replacement for Mannion either in 2017 or 2018. Not sure why that matters so much...conversely, what's the point of waiting? To me that's kind of nitpicky. Mannion is yes a one year this year but he was drafted to be a #3. They acquired Foles, they traded for Keenum, they drafted Mannion. Foles was not supposed to meltdown to the point where they benched and cut him and traded up for a replacement. AND Mannion is only a #2 until Goff is the #1 and then Keenum is the #2 and Mannion is as was originally intended, a #3. And, honestly, I would ask you sincerely to think about not making an identity for yourself chasing down and arguing at length about minor issues like this. I say that because typing up this paragraph feels silly. It's not the kind of thing worth disputing at length and in detail and the impulse to do so is odd. In all honesty, this feels like the dispute I had with the local town because my garage is one foot closer to the neighbor's property than it is supposed to be according to zoning rules (and the neighbor is through woods and across a creek with the house something like 50 or 60 yards from mine). I actually had to sign a special document allowing me to be an exception to the rule for this neighborhood (which is mostly trees). That's how I feel about getting into a debate about what year to draft Mannions replacement IF things even go that way. Defending one's assumptions about things that small is just a bit nutzoid. Why not spend your time instead posting things about the Rams that others dispute. That's personal but I think not egregiously so.

One comparison is NE. They probably will not be able to keep Garoppolo after the end of 2017. So they drafted Brissett now, rather than wait till next year. So at a minimum I would say that the smart way to do it...if the situation develops that way...is to not have a one year as the #3 if you know you;re #2 could be leaving (in that case though they make think of Garoppolo as Brady's eventual replacement so maybe they spend what it takes to keep him.

See? Typing that was more brain energy than I intended to expend on this. And my bet is no one but you out of all Ramfandom has read this far. This is boring picky detail stuff.

In contrast, that last bit, now you're talkin. An honest difference of opinion. I would keep the older experienced vet at #2 for 2 reasons. One is, just at the level of theory and principle, there is nothing to be gained by going cheap at qb---you go optimal at qb, or the coupla million you save won't amount to anything anyway because you cheaped out at qb. The other is simply that you want to have the older experienced vet #2 who has had some starts (so far for Keenum it;s 17 and who knows how many by the time Goff starts).

There;s no written in stone law about that, but I see the logic of the vet. I would rather have the vet who knows your system and players on top of it than make a couple of M of cap space the issue.

Now mercifully have the last word and leave these weighty issues for all those others waiting in line to chime in.



...