Thread: Broncos will sign Case Keenum, per Schefter

Robert Mays weighing in with a point I’ve been trying to make for weeks:

The Broncos’ case is particularly intriguing. If we estimate that Denver’s deal for Keenum falls somewhere in the ballpark of an $18 million cap hit, several additional questions emerge. Even after dealing corner Aqib Talib to the Rams, Denver had only $29 million or so remaining in 2018 cap room. No matter how its deal for Keenum is structured, that cost will likely consume more than half of the Broncos’ available space. When Denver fielded the league’s best defense and a fairly complete supporting cast, bumping up against the cap to find an effective quarterback may have seemed like a worthwhile risk. Those days are gone. Elway has been forced to make concessions at every level of his defense, running back remains a question mark, and the offensive line requires significant work. With Keenum on board, Denver probably still fails to move the needle in the AFC, and if spending more than 10 percent of the cap on a veteran quarterback isn’t a team’s final roster flourish, then signing that quarterback may not be prudent.

https://www.theringer.com/platform/a...mpression=true

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Scenario one - he looked like a system QB coming out of college. He was a UDFA because physically he wasn't impressive and couldn't overcome the system production knock.

He never got a job in Houston, even when he started a chunk of the season due to injuries, because he didn't play well. Was his situation ideal? No. But a 9 to 6 TD INT ratio isn't good. He was awful in LA, and while he had Fisher, and while that situation was bad, he didn't do anything well.

And then, he got to Minny and was the third guy. And as the third guy he was in a great scenario and did okay. He had an okay season in today's game. Dogfish said it best - you're paying a lot of money for an expensive game manager. And that was his ceiling. I'm skeptical of people who can only do well in good situations. The closest he ever was regarding be good, sans last year, was that half season as the starter in Texas. And I did see him play, throughout his entire career. And he's never looked good. There's a certain point where if you're good enough, you can make something happen.

I am aware of his career and his career trajectory. I think everyone is because he's been a huge story for the past season/offseason.

So let me play into the point that me and Cugel have both made...

Why is it that Goff was a bust under Fisher, but played great after he leaves and is considered a franchise QB? Why is it that Foles had a good season in Philly before Kelly screwed with him, then played bad under Fisher...but ended up being the Super Bowl MVP in a system more conducive to his skills? Those two players are good, but Keenum...in very much the same scenarios as the other two...having also proved he is a better QB outside of the Fisher system...is still a bad QB? Why is that?

Originally Posted by VonDoom

Robert Mays weighing in with a point I’ve been trying to make for weeks:



https://www.theringer.com/platform/a...mpression=true

All excellent points and hard to argue. But the cap scenario can be aided with the moving of an Anderson and Watson, so I think we have to wait that out just a bit. I think in a perfect scenario we would have signed a McCown and groomed the next franchise guy, but Elway likely refuses to have back to back losing seasons and wanted a bridge that can contribute successfully right now. At this point all we can do is pray for smart FA additions and a draft that actually produces quality players. If that doesn't happen, then Elway's job needs to be in jeopardy.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

So let me play into the point that me and Cugel have both made...

Why is it that Goff was a bust under Fisher, but played great after he leaves and is considered a franchise QB? Why is it that Foles had a good season in Philly before Kelly screwed with him, then played bad under Fisher...but ended up being the Super Bowl MVP in a system more conducive to his skills? Those two players are good, but Keenum...in very much the same scenarios as the other two...having also proved he is a better QB outside of the Fisher system...is still a bad QB? Why is that?

I don't think anyone would have called a slow start a bust. And let's not kid ourselves, it wasn't like Goff just got an average HC. He got a HC who was a wunderkind. It was a feast to famine type of deal.

Foles has been consistently up and down his entire career, and that can't be pinned all on the Rams. And let's not kid ourselves, either, at times this past season he looked rough, too. I don't think Foles is proven to be a good QB, or that Goff has proven to be a success or a failure.

I think going with 'those two are good so why is this guy bad' also ignores the fact that while they all had issues with the Rams, Keenum was poor well before he was a Ram.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

Robert Mays weighing in with a point I’ve been trying to make for weeks:



https://www.theringer.com/platform/a...mpression=true

1.) I think the real risk in this deal is the opportunity cost of not selecting a QB of the future because we feel that Keenum can help us compete now. That strikes me as a bigger risk than spending the money and not coming away with a successful season.
2.) What's missing from Mays' analysis is that our roster is built to compete now. If we would have gone with a rookie - then you run the risk of squandering the windows of high priced/high talent guys like DT, Sanders, Miller/Harris/Wolfe.
3.) Running back might be our deepest position - I don't think it's a question mark at all with Booker's emergence and us having Anderson under contract + Deangelo Henderson.

But I agree with the overall point that there is some risk that we are overspending relative to the production we can expect.

Originally Posted by Buff

1.) I think the real risk in this deal is the opportunity cost of not selecting a QB of the future because we feel that Keenum can help us compete now. That strikes me as a bigger risk than spending the money and not coming away with a successful season.
2.) What's missing from Mays' analysis is that our roster is built to compete now. If we would have gone with a rookie - then you run the risk of squandering the windows of high priced/high talent guys like DT, Sanders, Miller/Harris/Wolfe.
3.) Running back might be our deepest position - I don't think it's a question mark at all with Booker's emergence and us having Anderson under contract + Deangelo Henderson.

But I agree with the overall point that there is some risk that we are overspending relative to the production we can expect.

when did booker emerge? dude is 3.6 YPC so far. . .

your first part is my primary concern, but we obviously still have to see how things play out. . .

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

All excellent points and hard to argue. But the cap scenario can be aided with the moving of an Anderson and Watson, so I think we have to wait that out just a bit. I think in a perfect scenario we would have signed a McCown and groomed the next franchise guy, but Elway likely refuses to have back to back losing seasons and wanted a bridge that can contribute successfully right now. At this point all we can do is pray for smart FA additions and a draft that actually produces quality players. If that doesn't happen, then Elway's job needs to be in jeopardy.

i think this is accurate. . .

i can't lie, feeling like we need to crush the draft makes me nervous. . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

when did booker emerge? dude is 3.6 YPC so far. . .

your first part is my primary concern, but we obviously still have to see how things play out. . .

I guess I finally saw why people were excited about him toward the end of the year. He is more athletic than I realized - maybe "emergence" is giving him too much credit, but I feel like he's poised to take on more of the workload.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

So let me play into the point that me and Cugel have both made...

Why is it that Goff was a bust under Fisher, but played great after he leaves and is considered a franchise QB? Why is it that Foles had a good season in Philly before Kelly screwed with him, then played bad under Fisher...but ended up being the Super Bowl MVP in a system more conducive to his skills? Those two players are good, but Keenum...in very much the same scenarios as the other two...having also proved he is a better QB outside of the Fisher system...is still a bad QB? Why is that?

Or why did Peyton have such a huge drop off in play when Kubes system comes to Denver? It was because they took away Peytons greatest strength>> his mind.

They wanted him to call the play, line up and run it.

Peytons play dropped off the map. No one will ever convince me that it was his age.

So the case is made that you have to taylor your system to the QBs strengths.

Houston got a different QB last year when they changed it up for Watson.

Case is still learning. Im not anointing him.........just saying he can still have his best years ahead of him.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

All excellent points and hard to argue. But the cap scenario can be aided with the moving of an Anderson and Watson, so I think we have to wait that out just a bit. I think in a perfect scenario we would have signed a McCown and groomed the next franchise guy, but Elway likely refuses to have back to back losing seasons and wanted a bridge that can contribute successfully right now. At this point all we can do is pray for smart FA additions and a draft that actually produces quality players. If that doesn't happen, then Elway's job needs to be in jeopardy.

I agree with all of this, and it’s why I wanted McCown or someone like him and a rookie QB

Originally Posted by dogfish

i think this is accurate. . .

i can't lie, feeling like we need to crush the draft makes me nervous. . .

Yeah... but we need to crush this draft. This is very, very important, and not just from a QB point of view.

Originally Posted by Buff

1.) I think the real risk in this deal is the opportunity cost of not selecting a QB of the future because we feel that Keenum can help us compete now. That strikes me as a bigger risk than spending the money and not coming away with a successful season.
2.) What's missing from Mays' analysis is that our roster is built to compete now. If we would have gone with a rookie - then you run the risk of squandering the windows of high priced/high talent guys like DT, Sanders, Miller/Harris/Wolfe.
3.) Running back might be our deepest position - I don't think it's a question mark at all with Booker's emergence and us having Anderson under contract + Deangelo Henderson.

But I agree with the overall point that there is some risk that we are overspending relative to the production we can expect.

I would question “built to win now”, though I otherwise agree with you. We have talent but we also have plenty of deficiencies and the window on our Super Bowl defense is closed. I’d rather take our lumps with a rookie and hope we got our long term guy. Or take a cheaper, high upside guy like Bridgewater. Throwing 18 million at Keenum when we have plenty of better uses for the money just seems like a desperate move

Interesting but not surprising. VJ doesn’t inspire much confidence

Originally Posted by G_Money

Yeah... but we need to crush this draft. This is very, very important, and not just from a QB point of view.

It's a make or break year for Elway in my opinion. If he fails in FA and the draft his year, his job should be in jeopardy.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

I don't think anyone would have called a slow start a bust. And let's not kid ourselves, it wasn't like Goff just got an average HC. He got a HC who was a wunderkind. It was a feast to famine type of deal.

Foles has been consistently up and down his entire career, and that can't be pinned all on the Rams. And let's not kid ourselves, either, at times this past season he looked rough, too. I don't think Foles is proven to be a good QB, or that Goff has proven to be a success or a failure.

I think going with 'those two are good so why is this guy bad' also ignores the fact that while they all had issues with the Rams, Keenum was poor well before he was a Ram.

I guess we have a difference in opinion. As a young player on a bad Houston team, he still threw for 2200 yards, 11 TD to 8 INT at 55% in only 10 starts. Over a 16 game projection, that would have been 3500 yards 18 TD/13 INT. World class? No. "Poor"? Also a NO