Re: Case should play until there's a reason to replace him

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams
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.

Well not to nitpick but no I think he's doing more than what you describe in the "neutral category."

So maybe you need a "better than merely neutral" category.

In terms of who starts, I have no dog in that fight at all. I don't care who starts. I think a vet can do things a rookie can't and I think Goff can do things Keenum can't.

But how many qbs in week 4 got better than a 8.9 YPR, 2 TDs, no INTs, and a qb rating of 111.3.

We just see it differently. I believe he is firmly planted in the neutral category over the first 4 games.

The first game was clearly bad. The second game, the offense only scored 9 points. You're not gonna win many that way. Fortunately the D saved the day. He did a lot of good things against Tampa. But he also threw a pick 6. Last game he didn't make any egregious mistakes but the offense also didn't put up many points. That 2nd TD, he only needed to move the offense 20 yards to get into the end zone because of Austin's huge return.

You highlight week 4 stats. I'm looking at the entire body of work over the first quarter of the season. But even if I was looking solely at week 4 stats, I would also assess where he ranks on the QBR metric since it measures the QBs impact on the game. That metric factors the point I mentioned above regarding the 2nd TD requiring only 20 yards from him. In QBR, he had a 61.3 rating which was good for 14th.

Overall, he fits my definition of being in the neutral category. A game manager is not a negative thing. It's someone who makes good plays and has good games but also has his fair share of bad plays and games. Keenum's season has been up and down. His overall stats are mediocre. He has a highly rated game in week 4 that is offset by a very low rated game in week 1 with a couple of average to below average games in the other two weeks.

There's nothing neutral plus about him.

Yeah we do see it differently.

I don't put the 1st game on Keenum. That was the defense as much as anything else.

Scoring 9 points against the league's 2nd ranked defense (3rd in points)? Good job.

Then what we get is improvement from the 1st 2 games. In fact I see the 1st game as a team-wide wake-up call. They improved both after it and arguably BECAUSE of it.

Last 2? Rams won 2 games on the road when they were behind in both games. Rams didn't take the lead in Tampa until the very end of the 3rd quarter and in Arizona it was with 2:20-something left in the 4th.

I always said people underestimated Keenum. To really have a good idea about Keenum, you have to look beyond that at intangibles and how he uses his head to maximize what he can do.

In the last 8 games, the Rams are 6-2 with him at qb and that includes 2 3-game winning streaks. Obviously it's never all on the qb, but still, they can win with him.

So again, how many qbs last weekend got better than a 8.9 YPR, 2 TDs, no INTs, and a qb rating of 111.3.



...

Ok, we disagree on the 1st game being mostly on the defense. Interestingly enough, Keenum took responsibility for his bad performance so it sounds like he disagrees with you too.

Minimizing bad performances is the exact same as minimizing Keenum’s good contributions. No one is going to get anywhere discussing this issue if they're going to try and subtract bad games, and specifically that 1st game performance from the equation. There's no point in even trying, it would be just over-elaborating a false picture. See what I did there?

9 points is good? Seattle has the 3rd best defense in regard to points allowed per game at 13.5. 9 points is substantially below that. And you call that good? Come on… do you even believe that? The standard you’re setting here is unacceptably low.

Maybe you are right that there is improvement from the 1st two games. The problem is, it’s too soon to make that call. It’s too small of a sample size. But let's hope that you are right...

Asking how many QBs got better than his 111.3 QB rating / 61.3 QBR is like asking how many QBs did worse than his week 1 34.2 QB Rating / 5.5 QBR. I don’t care either way. One isolated performance isn’t compelling.

What I know is that Keenum is leading an offense that is 2nd to last in scoring at 14.2 points per game. Even if you took out the disastrous San Francisco game, the offense is only scoring 19 points per game which would be ranked 22nd. Three of the four games, they have scored substantially below the league average. That is a problem.

I recognize Keenum has good qualities and good performances and also severe limitations with just as many bad performances. To me that’s the epitome of a game manager who belongs in the neutral category.

I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this which is ok. Good discussion. Go ahead and have the final say.