I’m not trying to subtract Keenum’s contribution. If you felt that’s what I’m saying, there is a misunderstanding. I realize he is making a substantial contribution.
At the risk of oversimplification, I suggest that there are three levels of QB performance: positive, neutral, and negative.
Positive – The QB impacts the game in a positive way and often is a substantial reason WHY the team is winning.
Neutral – A game manager. He makes some plays, he misses some plays. If they lose, the blame is not really on him; but if they win, he also doesn’t deserve a lion’s share of the credit. For this to work, he must not make many mistakes.
Negative – See “melted down” Foles of 2015. This player routinely loses games for you. Goes out of his way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. The Austin Davis games against Arizona a couple of years ago also comes to mind.
Keenum is in the neutral category. Which is why Fisher and Snead like him. They have been dealing with QBs who are net negatives the last few years.
Given the offensive ranking and that Keenum hasn’t really minimized mistakes, I would put him at the low end right now of the neutral category. He’s done some good things which is the substantial contribution you talk about. But he’s also done some things that have really hurt the team. The defense has had to bail us out in every win.
I also agree with your assessment of Keenum versus Goff. At this stage, there are things we’d get from one that we wouldn’t get from the other and vice versa. Maybe both would be in the neutral category right now.
For me it comes down to this: if they are even, play your future franchise QB. You only play the placeholder when he’s ahead and would give you a greater chance of winning.