Thread: Why Case Keenum May Turn Out To Be The Steal Of The Century......

Originally Posted by WARHORSE

Case will bring scoring to the offense as long as the run game goes. No run game. Tough season.


If our RBs can bring some balance....we can make a leap back into the playoff picture will some upside.



Case Keenum is a stud in camo......short camo.......but he's going to throw over 25 TDs this year. Bank it.


Someone once said....."I got a little change in my pocket going jing a ling ling.........."

If he was a stud he wouldn't need a running game to do well - we've seen actual elite QBs do that and or make their running game effective. In other words, he's not really a stud by your own admission.

Originally Posted by King87

If he was a stud he wouldn't need a running game to do well - we've seen actual elite QBs do that and or make their running game effective. In other words, he's not really a stud by your own admission.

Elway needed a running game...Just saying

Originally Posted by Freyaka

Elway needed a running game...Just saying

he wouldn't today. . .

George Straight

Originally Posted by dogfish

he wouldn't today. . .

He sure ******* wouldn't.

Originally Posted by dogfish

he wouldn't today. . .

There are three QBs in the league that don't need a running game... Brady, Brees and Rodgers.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

There are three QBs in the league that don't need a running game... Brady, Brees and Rodgers.

are you saying that prime years john elway isn't as good as those guys? remember what era he played in before you answer. . .

Originally Posted by Freyaka

There are three QBs in the league that don't need a running game... Brady, Brees and Rodgers.

Rivers has done wonders without a good running game. Big Ben did wonders without a running game at times, too. Matt Ryan has done well when his running game wasn't great. These are just off the top of my head, Frey. Stafford has carried teams without a running game, too. Russell Wilson made the playoffs recently with a suspect offensive line, too.

Elway's numbers are a bit botched because of his era, and because of the schemes he played in, but he would be an absolute terror in the league right now.

Yeah, if your 'franchise guy' is Joe Flacco, you need a running game. I took issue with the verbiage used by Warhorse, because it was rather silly.

Originally Posted by dogfish

are you saying that prime years john elway isn't as good as those guys? remember what era he played in before you answer. . .

It's not a matter of "as good" it's a matter of those three guys are in a perfectly tailored scheme that allows a QB to succeed without a running game by providing him with an arsenal of weapons to utilize in a short passing game. In that instance, the passing game substitutes for a running game. Instead of handing off to the RB, dump off to the RB for 3-4 years.

It's not a talent thing, it's a playstyle. Elway would absolutely still need a run game to succeed. He is a run and gun QB. That's not a negative thing despite the way this thread is painting it.

Originally Posted by King87

Rivers has done wonders without a good running game. Big Ben did wonders without a running game at times, too. Matt Ryan has done well when his running game wasn't great. These are just off the top of my head, Frey. Stafford has carried teams without a running game, too. Russell Wilson made the playoffs recently with a suspect offensive line, too.

Elway's numbers are a bit botched because of his era, and because of the schemes he played in, but he would be an absolute terror in the league right now.

Yeah, if your 'franchise guy' is Joe Flacco, you need a running game. I took issue with the verbiage used by Warhorse, because it was rather silly.

I'll grant you Stafford, I won't grant you the others. When they have been successful playoff teams, they've had a running game. I would also argue that Stafford, would be a yearly playoff QB with a running game taking pressure off him.

There are very, very few QB's that can take a one dimensional team and make a deep playoff run with them. The notion that a QB is weak because he needs a running game to be at his peak efficiency is about the most absurd thing I've read on these boards. Very few QB's are in a position to win a lot of games by themselves.

Phyllis for example...Back when he had LT and Gates, he was a yearly threat to be in the playoffs. Since then? Well, most years they are lucky to win 5 games despite him putting up all-pro numbers. The guy LITERALLY has more children than he has winning seasons.

That is because in general, a team that is one dimensional is a team that struggles to win when it counts.

We're not talking about them as teams, Frey. We're talking about them as players. That's the point. We're arguing different things - I'm sure if you gave CK a perfect scenario or damn near, he could still do well. That doesn't mean he's good and that's what I'm talking about. And, in regards to Rivers, several times he went bonkers and an awful defense and special teams botched the situation - what's the difference when you get down to brass tacks?

Furthermore, Rodgers had the Packers listed as SB contenders when he didn't have a running game, Wilson lead the league in TDs without a running game, etc.

Oh, btw, Cousins didn't have a running game, or any meaningful offensive weapons sans one guy, and still had a season comparable to the Vikings who have what many consider to be the best WR tandem, a solid line, and a defense good enough to let the Vikings run the ball more than almost any team in the league.

And no, I'm not saying we should have signed Cousins, who I think is just a good, not great QB. But the point is that guys who aren't all-stars, in today's NFL, are able to do well without a running game.

So the whole "well he's good if he has x, y, and z, is just another way of propping him up as a player."

The only silver lining is that we got Chubb.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

It's not a matter of "as good" it's a matter of those three guys are in a perfectly tailored scheme that allows a QB to succeed without a running game by providing him with an arsenal of weapons to utilize in a short passing game. In that instance, the passing game substitutes for a running game. Instead of handing off to the RB, dump off to the RB for 3-4 years.

It's not a talent thing, it's a playstyle. Elway would absolutely still need a run game to succeed. He is a run and gun QB. That's not a negative thing despite the way this thread is painting it.

lol, wow. . .

Originally Posted by Freyaka

It's not a matter of "as good" it's a matter of those three guys are in a perfectly tailored scheme that allows a QB to succeed without a running game by providing him with an arsenal of weapons to utilize in a short passing game. In that instance, the passing game substitutes for a running game. Instead of handing off to the RB, dump off to the RB for 3-4 year
It's not a talent thing, it's a playstyle. Elway would absolutely still need a run game to succeed. He is a run and gun QB. That's not a negative thing despite the way this thread is painting it.

Rodgers is running around making plays few guys in the league's history can make. Brees is pound for pound one of the best passers ever and at times made teams respect the run even when the RB talent wasn't hot. Brady routinely has no name RB's (good lines though) who produce. Sure, coaching matters. But those guys are running offenses at the highest level, and it's not just schemes - if it was everyone would be running the same schemes. The last big add on to the Patriots playbook was some concepts from when BB picked Chip Kelly's brain. It's not exactly unknown stuff that they're doing, Frey.

PFM played a large portion of his career with average to poor offensive lines. He routinely had bad RB's with a 4.0 YPC or higher average. Why was that? PFM's playbook was vast, but it was largely the same from about year three to the end of his career before the Kubiak offense swapped in.

It's because those guys, while they had good or even great coaching were great themselves.

Individual greatness.

keesum aint built for swag

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

keesum aint built for swag

Kelly going to take over the starting job?