Can a Case be made for Keenum...?

[BWG VIKE]

1 hour ago, CriminalMind said:

I'm not some Teddy hater here. He was my choice for top QB available in his draft class, and thought we got gold when we moved up and got him with the final pick of the 1st round.

His 1st year was marginal to me, but I was fine with that. Cause I had hope for an impressive 2nd year increase. I personally only saw a small bump in play overall, with a good finish. When the 3rd year was coming along I was hoping for consistent average QB (on the league) play from Teddy, knowing if we got that, we could be in the SB. So I even bet on Vikings to win nfccg and the betting odds were favorable. Then the Teddy injury happened, and GM Rick saw the potential in the team to win the SB with good ish QB play, so he gave up the 1st rounder for Bradford and rolled the dice. Injuries basically derailed last season, but Rick was not wrong in his thought process.

As for Case, when he was signed, I wasn't that impressed with him. I even wondered if he'll be 3rd string here behind, the once potential Taylor Heinkie.

Now Case is playing great. Even better then I had expected in Teddy's what-if "3rd year", so it's going to be hard for to return to Teddy if Case continues his strong play thru to our home playoff games.

Can you back track any harder after the mic drop by krauser.

Lets make the playoffs before we start talking byes.

[Cearbhall]

I am not ready to talk about the next year or even the playoffs. That is something that will be dealt with when the time comes. For now, it is clear to me that Case Keenum should be starting for the Vikings. When Teddy's time comes, we have reason to believe that he might not be much of a drop off from Case Keenum. It is even possible that he'll be an upgrade. It is great to have him there. I still have hopes that he can one day become an above average QB in the league.

Right now, playing the odds dictates that the team keeps going with Case Keenum. Benching a QB that you have won this many in row with is not something that odds would suggest is likely to be a good decision.

There is a lot of speculation about what the team will do at QB in the future. IMO, it is very premature to conclude anything about what will be the better way to go at that point. Speculating is fine but drawing a conclusion this early would be a mistake. Keep starting case and we'll see where things are when the time comes.

In the meantime, enjoy the ride. This has been one heck of a ride so far and it is looking favorable that it will be fun for some more time.

[Klomp]

On 11/24/2017 at 7:25 AM, Purplexing said:

We can rationally speculate on a change in QBs IF/WHEN it happens.  But, for now, let's reflect on the words of a famous philosopher and Vikings fan: "anything can happen.".

speculate (verb): form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence

If waiting until a change happens, it's no longer speculation.

[CriminalMind]

19 hours ago, BWG VIKE said:

Can you back track any harder after the mic drop by krauser.

Lets make the playoffs before we start talking byes.

This is not back tracking at all, you should try learning what the difference is...

I also said that if Case continues to play this well, which is better then Teddy ever played & better then his projected 3rd years, it might not be reasonable to go back to Teddy. I still disagree with many statements by Krauser.

[CriminalMind]

The Minny QB situation thread on the general board is a good read from fans of other teams.

- Looks to be close to 50\50 to go with Case \ go with Teddy (for next year). No poll option

- looks like a fair share think Keenum & Teddy can both get a big-ish contract, from whichever teams this off season

 

[CriminalMind]

"If Vikings quarterback Case Keenum continues to play the way he has, he’ll be in for a big payday with his next contract... It’s a sure bet, however, that the Vikings won’t allow him to hit the open market" - Charley Walters

“A lot will depend on how the year ends, but based on how he’s doing right now, if I had to put an estimate on it, I would say he probably is going to get a contract worth about $15 million a year, like three years, $45 million,’’ said Jason Fitzgerald, who runs the websiteOvertheCap.com.'' - Chris Tomasson

I think on the open market he can get higher $$ gaureented then the Glennon contract ($18.5), cause his body of work this year is alot better.

[vikingsrule]

Hard to see this team being active in free agency given the payday that Keenum should receive. Too bad he wasn't originally signed to a two year deal. The idea of paying a player who has only been good for one year (on a stacked team) concerns me.

[Purplexing]

On 11/24/2017 at 11:40 AM, Dolmonite26 said:

Yeah odd question I I'd say.  Still 1% of throws are great either way, but no other context.

Are the rest garbage? What are we getting at here lol?

Here is the point.  I left out other details to focus on reliability of stats, quality measures highly regarded by coaches, and proximity in time to the current day.  THAT is a reason why these debates about QBOTF, or next week, have been ongoing, like a lengthy volley in table tennis...

First, coaches will decide whether 1% of passes being 'a perfect throw in specific circumstances, when needed' indicates a top tier QB they want for QBOTF, or insufficient performance.

Second, does double the attempts yield more reliable indications that the more experienced QB is more likely a top tier QB than the QB with fewer attempts?  For the ongoing table tennis match debate about QBOTF, do Vikings fans have adequate info on any / all of the potential QBOTFs to be comfortable and confident about one QB over the other two?

Third, the old adage "what have you done for me lately" also comes into play.  And coaches may be using too little or too much weight on this criteria.  CK has stats more like the 300 attempt QB, and TB & SB have stats more like the 600 attempt QB.  They key difference is the proximity in time to today; i.e. CK has done better lately, and that may be more important than having a higher volume of stats (i.e. 600 attempts and the same quality measure of 1% of critical passes thrown well / or mediocre/ or poorly).

My question suggests / coerces a conversation about WHAT PCTG of passes thrown perfectly ('a thing of beauty') do coaches expect / require from a QBOTF, HOW MANY such passes are needed to establish reliability in those stats, and the validity of those stats according to HOW LONG AGO has it been since that streak occurred; i.e. should we differentiate between the same volume and quality ratings of stats ...if they are more current than stats from 2-3 years ago?   If described succinctly, I suggest we discuss several (e.g. three) points on stats regarding QBOTF, rather than 'cherry pick' recent stats, or older stats, of low volume and/ or low reliability. 

An example:

We can see CK performing well with the new OL, dual RBs, and the emergence of AT, SD, and KR as key receivers, but are we sure SB or TB can perform as well, or better, if they step into the same offense?  One thing to consider is the mobility issue for TB and SB, and how well CK is able to escape pressure and occasionally run for positive yardage, or get a throw off to avoid a sack.  I would need to see both SB and TB in the current offense to have as much comfort with either going forward.  IF they cannot continue offensive drives similar to the way done by CK, or by a quicker delivery to avoid pressure, there is concern about them going forward.  So, Zim, and Rick 'Pickumulator' Spielman, need to see either or both play at the end of the year, or in playoff game(s), or in TC in 2018, before making a 'major commitment' ($ or starting job) to ANY of the 3 potential QBOTFs.  Since we don't have those stats now, I'll just speculate that QB X has the highest potential to be QBOTF {because he did this or that when that happened and there are enough instances (N pass attempts) of that to see he can do it consistently).

OK, ...discuss.

 

 

[Purplexing]

On 11/24/2017 at 9:46 AM, SemperFeist said:

I disagree that they have to see him play in a game. Would it be beneficial, sure, but these coaches see him every day in practice and in the meeting rooms. They have a very good idea of what he can do. 

They cannot be sure if he is mobile enough to avoid a pass rush who won't just touch him like in practice.  They likely do have sufficient info on other pass attempts without pressure put on by DL or a blitz.  So, others and I want to see him play a few series, at the least, at some point during 2017.

[Purplexing]

On 11/24/2017 at 11:39 AM, gopherwrestler said:

One thing to remember is we have seen teams completely drop their Vet QB's after winning the Superbowl,  Johnson, Dilfer, & there might even be more, so even if we make a playoff run or farther it isn't crazy to see a team move on from their QB like that.

Those teams' circumstance are rare, and don't seem to apply to Minnesota.  You're inching out on a limb that doesn't seem to have much support.  Why did those SB winners drop their vet QBs, and why do you think circumstances are the same in MN? (re: the latter; I think not).

[Purplexing]

On 11/24/2017 at 11:51 AM, Dolmonite26 said:

The Vikings pressure to sack ratio is one of the best in the league, something around only 4% of pressures are turning into sacks.

A good indicator of Keenum's play.  Fact is, he's making the argument a lot tougher for us Ted heads.

The key variables which differentiates the 3 seems to me to be their pocket elusiveness and ability to gain yardage / 1st downs by running.  The Pickumulator and Zimmer need to see TB and SB replicate the same ability to continue drives thru elusiveness, running / and or throwing quickly enough to avoid sacks.

[Purplexing]

6 hours ago, Klomp said:

speculate (verb): form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence

If waiting until a change happens, it's no longer speculation.

Note my use of an adverb.

[CriminalMind]

14 minutes ago, Purplexing said:

Here is the point.  I left out other details to focus on reliability of stats, quality measures highly regarded by coaches, and proximity in time to the current day.  THAT is a reason why these debates about QBOTF, or next week, have been ongoing, like a lengthy volley in table tennis...

First, coaches will decide whether 1% of passes being 'a perfect throw in specific circumstances, when needed' indicates a top tier QB they want for QBOTF, or insufficient performance.

Second, does double the attempts yield more reliable indications that the more experienced QB is more likely a top tier QB than the QB with fewer attempts?  For the ongoing table tennis match debate about QBOTF, do Vikings fans have adequate info on any / all of the potential QBOTFs to be comfortable and confident about one QB over the other two?

Third, the old adage "what have you done for me lately" also comes into play.  And coaches may be using too little or too much weight on this criteria.  CK has stats more like the 300 attempt QB, and TB & SB have stats more like the 600 attempt QB.  They key difference is the proximity in time to today; i.e. CK has done better lately, and that may be more important than having a higher volume of stats (i.e. 600 attempts and the same quality measure of 1% of critical passes thrown well / or mediocre/ or poorly).

My question suggests / coerces a conversation about WHAT PCTG of passes thrown perfectly ('a thing of beauty') do coaches expect / require from a QBOTF, HOW MANY such passes are needed to establish reliability in those stats, and the validity of those stats according to HOW LONG AGO has it been since that streak occurred; i.e. should we differentiate between the same volume and quality ratings of stats ...if they are more current than stats from 2-3 years ago?   If described succinctly, I suggest we discuss several (e.g. three) points on stats regarding QBOTF, rather than 'cherry pick' recent stats, or older stats, of low volume and/ or low reliability. 

An example:

We can see CK performing well with the new OL, dual RBs, and the emergence of AT, SD, and KR as key receivers, but are we sure SB or TB can perform as well, or better, if they step into the same offense?  One thing to consider is the mobility issue for TB and SB, and how well CK is able to escape pressure and occasionally run for positive yardage, or get a throw off to avoid a sack.  I would need to see both SB and TB in the current offense to have as much comfort with either going forward.  IF they cannot continue offensive drives similar to the way done by CK, or by a quicker delivery to avoid pressure, there is concern about them going forward.  So, Zim, and Rick 'Pickumulator' Spielman, need to see either or both play at the end of the year, or in playoff game(s), or in TC in 2018, before making a 'major commitment' ($ or starting job) to ANY of the 3 potential QBOTFs.  Since we don't have those stats now, I'll just speculate that QB X has the highest potential to be QBOTF {because he did this or that when that happened and there are enough instances (N pass attempts) of that to see he can do it consistently).

OK, ...discuss.

 

 

I agree with alot of what you said.

If we're thinking the "no major commitment", I'm thinking it's more of a "no major long term commitment". Of course, you don't want to have to commit long term to QB, unless you have to or completely sold on them. I certainty think a big 1 year deal is a good deal for Vikings to maintain future flexibility, but it's unknown if Case can do better than that on open market, setting up a potential how high do we offer on a 1 year deal.

[Purplexing]

On 11/24/2017 at 10:50 PM, Dolmonite26 said:

What's the precedent for career backups, or even just suddenly great years becoming new norms for quarterbacks?

Most tend to fall back to the mean.  Look at Matt Ryan last year vs every other year of his career.  2016 Matt Ryan is not Matt Ryan.  Which is the fear and trepidation I think for many about CK, at least beyond this year.

Ummm.... Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Brad Johnson, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, ... there must be more, but I haven't had enough caffeine this am.

Would Cunningham and Warren count in your definition of 'career backup' or 'late bloomer'?

[Purplexing]

2 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

I agree with alot of what you said.

If we're thinking the "no major commitment", I'm thinking it's more of a "no major long term commitment". Of course, you don't want to have to commit long term to QB, unless you have to or completely sold on them. I certainty think a big 1 year deal is a good deal for Vikings to maintain future flexibility, but it's unknown if Case can do better than that on open market, setting up a potential how high do we offer on a 1 year deal.

You are correct re: no major commitment.  Brzezinski, Pickumulator, Zimmer, and Shurmur have their work cut out for them in the off season.