With the emergence of QBs like Case Keenum do GMs need to re-evaluate things?

[Big Turk]

Its said that spread QBs can take several years to learn the NFL game and it appears the light finally clicked for Keenum this year.  That geta me thinking just how many other Keenum stories there might be arpund the NFL that we will nevee know about because once you become a 3rd stringer you pretty much are done as a starting QB unless crazy circumstances lead to you getting an extended opportunity.

 

That's what happened with Keenum as he was basically signed for peanuts by the Vikings and not expected to play. 

 

Do GMs need to start reevaluating their scouting processes with the realization it might take a good 4 or 5 years for a QB to be ready to play well? Most players dont ever get that long to show it...they end up on the scrap heap or buried on a depth chart.

 

It will be interesting to see...now mlre than ever with spread QBs becoming more  and more common, I think it might be time they start realizing sometimes it just takes longer...think it also shows that scheme and system are ultra important in the NFL

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by matter2003

[PaattMaann]

I think a way larger sample size would be needed than 1 spread QB, taking 5 years to develop, and having 1 good offensive year to get GMs to change how they evaluate QBs...

 

THAT said, I do believe all QB success in the NFL (even Tom Brady) is largely dependent on being in the right place, with the right coaching staff/philosophy/, at the right time.

 

Many NFL QBs would benefit from sitting and learning how to be an NFL QB before being thrown into the fire, regardless of college system run. Most NFL GM's/teams don't have that luxury though. 

[clayboy54]

After this past Sunday, you are using an example of why GMs are correct and have been correct in evaluating Keenum and other similar QBs correctly. They are career backups. They may be good backups, but they're still backups.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, clayboy54 said:

After this past Sunday, you are using an example of why GMs are correct and have been correct in evaluating Keenum and other similar QBs correctly. They are career backups. They may be good backups, but they're still backups.

 

The clock struck twelve on Keenum. 

[RobH063]

I think agents of those type of quarterbacks may want to rethink how long their clients contracts should be. If they come out of college and they aren't being considered the next coming of TB, they should sign a 3 year deal at most. That way if they become the 3rd stringer for whatever reason, they're still young when they become a free agent. Lets say a QB blossoms in year 5. So he gets through the 3 year contract, then signs a 2 year contract. Then blossoms. Now he's in line to get a hefty pay day where otherwise he could be under contract for a lot less money and the starter.

[DCOrange]

If a guy is going to take 7 years to develop like Keenum, he just isn't worth a draft pick. That's far too long to wait.

[Just Joshin']

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The clock struck twelve on Keenum. 

Agree but a team will make him right I suspect - hopefully not the Bills.

[Tommy]

To answer the question posed in the thread title: Not necessarily. Case Keenum had a good year, but I think we also have to remember that this was a single season, and that he was playing for (I believe) the team with the #1 Defense in the NFL. Keenum performed well within the structure that was provided for him, and he had a great defense to back him up. Even if he goes on to another team and has to carry more of the load himself - and performs well at it - I'm not sure it changes how GMs would need to evaluate QBs. He's been in the league long enough at this point, and no GM wants to wait 5 years for a guy to "blossom." 

 

I think Keenum is just a good example of how it's possible to have a successful team without a top-end QB. However, I think this is much more the exception than the rule. I.e. I think that any GM would rather plan to have a great QB (who can mask weaknesses) than plan to construct such a great supporting roster that the particular QB used is not as important.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Tommy

[BringBackOrton]

No. Keenum wasn't even drafted. Even if the light came on, and that's not likely, he's not the typical rookie QB. 

[BillsFan130]

Na I don't think so.

 

Keenum played well this year don't get me wrong, but would you give him the keys to the franchise especially after that horrible game against Philly?

 

I certainly wouldn't.

 

The odd time QBS are late bloomers who pan out, but its pretty rare.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by billsfan11

[Westside Madness]

2 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

After this past Sunday, you are using an example of why GMs are correct and have been correct in evaluating Keenum and other similar QBs correctly. They are career backups. They may be good backups, but they're still backups.

 

The irony with this is that the QB that beat him is also one that has been considered a 'career backup' and played well...

[MrEpsYtown]

2 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Its said that spread QBs can take several years to learn the NFL game and it appears the light finally clicked for Keenum this year.  That geta me thinking just how many other Keenum stories there might be arpund the NFL that we will nevee know about because once you become a 3rd stringer you pretty much are done as a starting QB unless crazy circumstances lead to you getting an extended opportunity.

 

That's what happened with Keenum as he was basically signed for peanuts by the Vikings and not expected to play. 

 

Do GMs need to start reevaluating their scouting processes with the realization it might take a good 4 or 5 years for a QB to be ready to play well? Most players dont ever get that long to show it...they end up on the scrap heap or buried on a depth chart.

 

It will be interesting to see...now mlre than ever with spread QBs becoming more  and more common, I think it might be time they start realizing sometimes it just takes longer...think it also shows that scheme and system are ultra important in the NFL

 

 

 

These are interesting points. We are seeing the success of guys like Keenum, Cousin, Foles, Garoppolo, because they were backups at points and got to observe and develop.  Even Alex Smith wasn't very good until late in his 49ers career and we saw him take off with the move to KC. It takes time. That's why people may take a shot on AJ McCarron or even a guy like Tyler Bray, guys sitting in the background on rosters developing. 

 

Every year we hear during draft time that guys need to sit a year or two and develop, because they are not ready. But time and time again we see guys drafted early and starting right away and looking terrible. There are just so many guys who got thrown to the wolves too early and are now out of the game. I think at times this can work as we saw with guys like Peyton Manning or even Goff and Wentz in their second years. But to me these are exceptions. Owners need to commit to coaches and GMs for longer so that they can properly develop quarterbacks. The Bears threw Mitch Trubisky in there and everyone got fired anyway. They probably would have been better off letting him sit. 

 

Rodgers sat. Rivers sat. Even Eli sat for a little bit. Carson Palmer sat for 1 full season and the Bengals refused to play him. It was the best thing for him. I suppose we could see a return to that mentality, but it seems unlikely. 

 

Guys like Rosen, Darnold, Jackson are only 20-21 years old. That is just extremely young to be starting games in the NFL. 

[GunnerBill]

I think the truth with Keenum is that he was underrated BEFORE this year and has been slightly overrated AFTER this year.  I think Keenum can be a reasonable bridge / placeholder.  I have always thought he is a better Quarterback than say Mike Glennon but because he was an UDFA and is 6ft with high heels on an inaccurate big armed lump like Glennon is higher rated. 

[K D]

Keenum is just the latest in the "journeyman QB's" to have some success.  they all have a blip on the radar at some point but when put in the position of being "the man" they regress and you realize that their small window of success was just an outlier.  let's face it, if you throw enough passes in this league you are bound to get on a hot streak every now and then.  guys like Keenum, Fitz, McCown, Hoyer...those guys are who they are.  if you think they are all of a sudden good then you are just fooling yourself

[Big Turk]

6 minutes ago, kdiggz said:

Keenum is just the latest in the "journeyman QB's" to have some success.  they all have a blip on the radar at some point but when put in the position of being "the man" they regress and you realize that their small window of success was just an outlier.  let's face it, if you throw enough passes in this league you are bound to get on a hot streak every now and then.  guys like Keenum, Fitz, McCown, Hoyer...those guys are who they are.  if you think they are all of a sudden good then you are just fooling yourself

 

That didnt happen with Rich Gannon...there are probably more stories like his that have never happened due to this mentality.

Edited January 24, 2018 by matter2003

[Livinginthepast]

I think Keenum can win you a championship maybe once if the stars align, you have a great running game and defense, and you get some breaks (like the Playoff miracle in Minni this year). He is better than Trent Dilfer.  I just don't think he can sustain that for more than a season. He seems like the type of QB that given enough time, Defensive coordinators soon find a way to neutralize. I really don't expect him to ever have that lightning in a bottle again. Against Philly he looked exactly the player he was with the Rams.

[row_33]

It's depends on a case by case basis.  It was a year that formerly un-elites could shine. 

 

At the Australian Open almost all the top seeds have been wiped out early.

 

 

[Big Turk]

2 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

After this past Sunday, you are using an example of why GMs are correct and have been correct in evaluating Keenum and other similar QBs correctly. They are career backups. They may be good backups, but they're still backups.

Right...so one week does more than the 15.5 previous weeks...thats just called hoping you see what you've been wanting to see.

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, kdiggz said:

  guys like Keenum, Fitz, McCown, Hoyer...those guys are who they are.  if you think they are all of a sudden good then you are just fooling yourself

 

I think he is the best of that bunch because he is the most accurate of that bunch but he is not suddenly a franchise saviour.  He is a serviceable placeholder. I think we have one of those too. 

[TheFunPolice]

Keenum got lucky on a miracle play vs New Orleans then got stomped in Philly.

 

He was just OK this season in my opinion.