JDBrocks Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Cearbhall said: Keenum sure was doing things before the bye that Bradford wouldn't have done. Kennum was avoiding sacks that Bradford would have taken. Those sacks would have resulted in ended drives. Keenum was also throwing balls beyond the sticks on third down where Bradford would have ended the drive with his give up on the drive checkdown. Those 3-4 drives a game that Bradford would have ended would have resulted in a defense that was increasingly tired and eventually they would give up more points. Couple that with, the fewer points the Vikings get after Bradford, doing Bradford things, kills drives. End result: the Vikings would have lost some of those games. I agree with the mobility/sack statement, but I don't know that I agree with the short passing game argument. We watched Bradford have maybe the best game of his career in week 1, and he was delivering strikes downfield into tight coverage. I don't know that the Vikings would have won as many games as they have, but I certainly think they could have, albeit in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 We most likely would have beat Detroit had Bradford played. Keenum at the time was still adjusting. He missed a TD pass to Thielen too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klomp Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 10 hours ago, ArcticNorseman said: Why is Keenum's case different than Drew Bledsoe-Tom Brady or Don Majkowski-Bret Favre? He replaced a vet that got hurt and has been playing lights-out ever since. Of all the QBs in the NFL, the only long-term successful one Keenum parallels is Brees . . . maybe Kurt Warner. Tom Brady was 24. Brett Favre was 23. Case Keenum is 29. The closest you could parallel is Kurt Warner, who was 28 that first year as a starter in St. Louis. But he only really gave the Rams 3 years. By Year 4 he was 0-6 as a starter. So if you're looking for longterm success, I believe Keenum isn't the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Klomp said: Tom Brady was 24. Brett Favre was 23. Case Keenum is 29. The closest you could parallel is Kurt Warner, who was 28 that first year as a starter in St. Louis. But he only really gave the Rams 3 years. By Year 4 he was 0-6 as a starter. So if you're looking for longterm success, I believe Keenum isn't the way to go. I actually think Rich Gannon is a closer parallel, at least from the perspective of hoping Keenum has long term success. Gannon had couple stints as a starter, but was mostly a journeyman backup until his 30's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Klomp said: Tom Brady was 24. Brett Favre was 23. Case Keenum is 29. The closest you could parallel is Kurt Warner, who was 28 that first year as a starter in St. Louis. But he only really gave the Rams 3 years. By Year 4 he was 0-6 as a starter. So if you're looking for longterm success, I believe Keenum isn't the way to go. Nope. Keenum might be a decent starting option for 3-4 years. Which is fine, that gives the team a few drafts to find a long term replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Let's just see what he can do in the playoffs. At one point, Tarvaris Jackson replaced Gus Frerotte late in the 2008 season. Jackson managed the game and helped us win the division. And then we played the Eagles in the wildcard and it all went to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 33 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: Let's just see what he can do in the playoffs. At one point, Tarvaris Jackson replaced Gus Frerotte late in the 2008 season. Jackson managed the game and helped us win the division. And then we played the Eagles in the wildcard and it all went to hell. Jackson never had the success that Keenum has had this far. There was never any real hope with Jackson. Keenum has played like a solid starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, vikingsrule said: that gives the team a few drafts to find a long term replacement. What if they ready have that guy on the roster? They believed that Bridgewater was their franchise QB once, and were very close to playing him a few weeks ago. What’s changed to make us think that they’d look elsewhere for a long term replacement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplexing Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: What if they ready have that guy on the roster? What’s changed to make us think that they’d look elsewhere for a long term replacement? Bradford was brought back (too soon) when he was still immobile, benching Keenum to do so in the Chicago game. Why hasn't Zimmer similarly benched Keenum to start ready-to-play TB? Answer that honestly to also answer your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: What if they ready have that guy on the roster? They believed that Bridgewater was their franchise QB once, and were very close to playing him a few weeks ago. What’s changed to make us think that they’d look elsewhere for a long term replacement? He's a free agent. If the choice is Teddy over Keenum, then so be it. But I don't think they can have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, vikingsrule said: He's a free agent. If the choice is Teddy over Keenum, then so be it. But I don't think they can have both. That’s ultimately my point. If you only see Keenum as a 2-3 year starter while you look for a long term replacement, then why not simply keep Bridgewater, who was viewed strongly as the team’s long term QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, SemperFeist said: That’s ultimately my point. If you only see Keenum as a 2-3 year starter while you look for a long term replacement, then why not simply keep Bridgewater, who was viewed strongly as the team’s long term QB? It is difficult to make that same assessment now given the injury and being two years removed from playing. Without playing time, it's definitely a gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, Purplexing said: Bradford was brought back (too soon) when he was still immobile, benching Keenum to do so in the Chicago game. Why hasn't Zimmer similarly benched Keenum to start ready-to-play TB? Answer that honestly to also answer your question. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s watched the games that Keenum has been playing at a level that doesn’t warrant benching. The same couldn’t have been said following the loss to Detroit, heading into Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 minute ago, vikingsrule said: It is difficult to make that same assessment now given the injury and being two years removed from playing. Without playing time, it's definitely a gamble. It’s certainly a gamble. But it’s also a gamble believing that Keenum can continue this level of play given his level of play prior to this year. And it’s certainly a gamble heading looking at the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 5 hours ago, vikingsrule said: Nope. Keenum might be a decent starting option for 3-4 years. Which is fine, that gives the team a few drafts to find a long term replacement. That's kind of a weird time frame to me. Either you view him as a stop gap starter and that's probably 1 or 2 years max, or he's the long term starter and he's probably too young to assume he's done in 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.