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

Originally Posted by topscribe

Well, yes I did. It was in the article I wrote a few pages back. Read it.

Nonetheless, if he did it once, why couldn't he do it again? Is that a bad argument?

Still, I have qualified it by saying that he might do well again this year, and he may not.
I just expressed that it is my opinion that he will and documented why I think that way.
But I never presented it as more than an opinion. And I never did close out the
possibility that he could tank. I'm in the same shoes as everyone else here; I hope
against hope that he plays lights out because that is how the Broncos will win. I only
take the more positive view of the future. That's all.

It's not that he *can't* it's that he likely won't. He's not a 11th grade QB - he *can* have success, but everything indicates he's not going to do so. Whether it's the production on a stacked team, or the years of futility, the inability to ever win a starting job, his limited physical talent, his game manager style, he's always going to have to be more of a game manager than a gamebreaker. That's not much of a success. Watching him last year it was like everything had to be lined up for him to succeed. He didn't look like a guy who was making a big impact; he looked like a guy taking advantage of a good situation (in the good way, not conniving but using the assets around him) and not making other people better. Typically speaking, at this point in your career you are who you are.

I know it's your opinion he will do well. And I don't take issue with that - reasonable people can agree, disagree, etc.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

It's not that he *can't* it's that he likely won't. He's not a 11th grade QB - he *can* have success, but everything indicates he's not going to do so. Whether it's the production on a stacked team, or the years of futility, the inability to ever win a starting job, his limited physical talent, his game manager style, he's always going to have to be more of a game manager than a gamebreaker. That's not much of a success. Watching him last year it was like everything had to be lined up for him to succeed. He didn't look like a guy who was making a big impact; he looked like a guy taking advantage of a good situation (in the good way, not conniving but using the assets around him) and not making other people better. Typically speaking, at this point in your career you are who you are.

I know it's your opinion he will do well. And I don't take issue with that - reasonable people can agree, disagree, etc.

Okay, agree to disagree. Sounds like a plan.

But I think we do agree on one thing: we both hope he will . . .

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

It's not that he *can't* it's that he likely won't. He's not a 11th grade QB - he *can* have success, but everything indicates he's not going to do so. Whether it's the production on a stacked team, or the years of futility, the inability to ever win a starting job, his limited physical talent, his game manager style, he's always going to have to be more of a game manager than a gamebreaker. That's not much of a success. Watching him last year it was like everything had to be lined up for him to succeed. He didn't look like a guy who was making a big impact; he looked like a guy taking advantage of a good situation (in the good way, not conniving but using the assets around him) and not making other people better. Typically speaking, at this point in your career you are who you are.

I know it's your opinion he will do well. And I don't take issue with that - reasonable people can agree, disagree, etc.

People are wrong if they expect him to be Aaron Rodgers. I expect him to help the team win games. And this will often mean making smart decisions. Simian was a QBs whose playing style was that of a game manager but with the turnovers of a gunslinger. While he might be well short of Aaron Rodgers, I think it's fair to think he'll be a big step up from Simian.

Originally Posted by 7alpha30

People are wrong if they expect him to be Aaron Rodgers. I expect him to help the team win games. And this will often mean making smart decisions. Simian was a QBs whose playing style was that of a game manager but with the turnovers of a gunslinger. While he might be well short of Aaron Rodgers, I think it's fair to think he'll be a big step up from Simian.

*Siemian

WTF happened in here yesterday?

Good grief.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

WTF happened in here yesterday?

Good grief.

Jaded rolled his eyes at me because I stated that I hope folks don't wish Keenum to fail just to prove themselves right. King being King.

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

The heels are dug in. It’s over. It’s Orton 2.0. Stats and excuses will continue to rain down even after Keenum is gone from the team. You guys realize this is a Pyrrhic victory, right? I’ve seen these same posts before for Orton and how great he was immediately after we acquired him as well as all the excuses that flew when he didn’t perform (finger on throwing hand, multiple high ankle sprains, bad Oline, receivers dropping everything, running game not working, etc.) How someone professed to be the resident expert who knew all about his past and could explain away all his faults as not truly his and any disparaging remarks were met with useless stats and straw man arguments combined with passive aggressive personal jabs about “not reading” or “not comprehending” and “putting words in my mouth”, etc, etc, etc.

Rinse and repeat.

So, you're saying that Tim Tebow was the better option? Those were the choices.

It intrigues me that some folks worry about Keenum in the sense that he can only have success on a "stacked team". That lends me to find definition on that. So, looking at Minnesota compared to Denver, I see 2 teams with great defenses, so that's a wash. On the OL, I think what we have as of today is much better than what Minnesota trotted out there last year. Even more if we were to draft a guy like Nelson. But the receiver spot is where everyone wants to focus on. So, I ask...how many good seasons did Diggs and Thielen have BEFORE Keenum was the QB? I mean, if they are the reason he was so good, why did they wait until 2017? Why didn't they make Bradford or Bridgewater look better in the years before?

Basically, Keenum is coming from a "stacked" team with a good defense, mediocre OL and good receivers...to an "un-stacked" team with a good defense, passable OL and good receivers.

So help me out here. What is it that made Minnesota so much more "stacked" last year than Denver is this year? Despite having the exact same strength of schedule and similar strengths and weaknesses. Was it maybe...just maybe...improved QB play?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

It intrigues me that some folks worry about Keenum in the sense that he can only have success on a "stacked team". That lends me to find definition on that. So, looking at Minnesota compared to Denver, I see 2 teams with great defenses, so that's a wash. On the OL, I think what we have as of today is much better than what Minnesota trotted out there last year. Even more if we were to draft a guy like Nelson. But the receiver spot is where everyone wants to focus on. So, I ask...how many good seasons did Diggs and Thielen have BEFORE Keenum was the QB? I mean, if they are the reason he was so good, why did they wait until 2017? Why didn't they make Bradford or Bridgewater look better in the years before?

Basically, Keenum is coming from a "stacked" team with a good defense, mediocre OL and good receivers...to an "un-stacked" team with a good defense, passable OL and good receivers.

So help me out here. What is it that made Minnesota so much more "stacked" last year than Denver is this year? Despite having the exact same strength of schedule and similar strengths and weaknesses. Was it maybe...just maybe...improved QB play?

Shots fired!

And accurate as well.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

It intrigues me that some folks worry about Keenum in the sense that he can only have success on a "stacked team". That lends me to find definition on that. So, looking at Minnesota compared to Denver, I see 2 teams with great defenses, so that's a wash. On the OL, I think what we have as of today is much better than what Minnesota trotted out there last year. Even more if we were to draft a guy like Nelson. But the receiver spot is where everyone wants to focus on. So, I ask...how many good seasons did Diggs and Thielen have BEFORE Keenum was the QB? I mean, if they are the reason he was so good, why did they wait until 2017? Why didn't they make Bradford or Bridgewater look better in the years before?

Basically, Keenum is coming from a "stacked" team with a good defense, mediocre OL and good receivers...to an "un-stacked" team with a good defense, passable OL and good receivers.

So help me out here. What is it that made Minnesota so much more "stacked" last year than Denver is this year? Despite having the exact same strength of schedule and similar strengths and weaknesses. Was it maybe...just maybe...improved QB play?

I'm interested in seeing how Thomas and Sanders do this year. Many have written Thomas off. They might be right but it's hard to be completely confident about this when the QB play has been as bad as it's been the past two years.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

It intrigues me that some folks worry about Keenum in the sense that he can only have success on a "stacked team". That lends me to find definition on that. So, looking at Minnesota compared to Denver, I see 2 teams with great defenses, so that's a wash. On the OL, I think what we have as of today is much better than what Minnesota trotted out there last year. Even more if we were to draft a guy like Nelson. But the receiver spot is where everyone wants to focus on. So, I ask...how many good seasons did Diggs and Thielen have BEFORE Keenum was the QB? I mean, if they are the reason he was so good, why did they wait until 2017? Why didn't they make Bradford or Bridgewater look better in the years before?

Basically, Keenum is coming from a "stacked" team with a good defense, mediocre OL and good receivers...to an "un-stacked" team with a good defense, passable OL and good receivers.

So help me out here. What is it that made Minnesota so much more "stacked" last year than Denver is this year? Despite having the exact same strength of schedule and similar strengths and weaknesses. Was it maybe...just maybe...improved QB play?

Lmao

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

It intrigues me that some folks worry about Keenum in the sense that he can only have success on a "stacked team". That lends me to find definition on that. So, looking at Minnesota compared to Denver, I see 2 teams with great defenses, so that's a wash. On the OL, I think what we have as of today is much better than what Minnesota trotted out there last year. Even more if we were to draft a guy like Nelson. But the receiver spot is where everyone wants to focus on. So, I ask...how many good seasons did Diggs and Thielen have BEFORE Keenum was the QB? I mean, if they are the reason he was so good, why did they wait until 2017? Why didn't they make Bradford or Bridgewater look better in the years before?

Basically, Keenum is coming from a "stacked" team with a good defense, mediocre OL and good receivers...to an "un-stacked" team with a good defense, passable OL and good receivers.

So help me out here. What is it that made Minnesota so much more "stacked" last year than Denver is this year? Despite having the exact same strength of schedule and similar strengths and weaknesses. Was it maybe...just maybe...improved QB play?

I agree with everything you said.

But, man, I wish Keenum would have brought Thielen with him . . .

Originally Posted by Northman

Lmao

Terrific rebuttal.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Terrific rebuttal.

Don't need one. No one has provided an answer that makes any sense as to why the Vikings let him go if he was really that good. The fact they did that automatically shuts down any counter argument.

Originally Posted by Northman

Don't need one. No one has provided an answer that makes any sense as to why the Vikings let him go if he was really that good. The fact they did that automatically shuts down any counter argument.

I give up. Why did the Vikings allow Keenum to go?