How the Rams might be setting up to actually land a decent quarterback

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25532079/how-the-rams-might-be-setting-up-to-actually-land-a-decent-quarterback
How the Rams might be setting up to actually land a decent quarterback
By Will Brinson | NFL Writer
March 26, 2016 8:00 pm ET

Take one look at the Rams’ quarterback depth chart and it’s easy to assume they are doing it all wrong. Never able to secure a quality quarterback during Jeff Fisher’s time with the franchise, the Rams are making the inexplicable decision to roll with Case Keenum because he went 3-1 down the stretch in 2015.

It’s a misleading 3-1, as Keenum averaged just 173 yards per game passing while throwing three touchdowns and one interception. Total.

Is it possible the Rams are playing this right? Well, actually there is. Not because of how they’re touting their approach, per se, but because of how their actual approach to the economics of the quarterback market could play out.

The Rams’ philosophy

First, let’s examine what Los Angeles is trying to do. Because it appears the Rams are the only team in the entire league downplaying the importance of the quarterback position.

GM Les Snead stood up in front of the world at the combine, combined a discussion of analytics with a discussion of quarterback wins and basically pooh-poohed the notion you need to a quarterback to win in the NFL.

“To sum it all up, when Case Keenum came in he went 3-1 down the stretch. So he stabilized us. We had gone on a five-game losing streak and he goes 3-1 down the stretch,” Snead said. “That’s a start there. We do like what Case brought to the table. That’s why we traded for him last year, to bring him back, and he helped stabilize the position. So my answer, it’s not just one variable to win in this league. There’s a lot.

“The QB is important, but there is a lot of other things that are important, too.”

This is some sort of bizarro-world Moneyball situation. Everyone is zigging in the direction of trying to find a long-term solution at the quarterback position, and the Rams are just zagging as hard as possible in the opposite direction.

Snead was summing up a lengthy diatribe on points scored and quarterbacks’ records when their teams score points, saying the Rams have “done a lot of studies … about quarterbacks and what makes quarterbacks successful.”

“There’s been 21 QBs since 2012 that have started 45 or more games. So if their team gives up 25 or more points, there’s only one of those QBs who has actually got a winning record, and it’s just over .500,” Snead said. “I’ll let you guys do the research to figure that out. If your team gives up 17 or less than 17 points, all 21 of those guys have winning records. Now you get into a couple categories, 21 to 24 points, that you give up, 11 of those quarterbacks have winning records and 10 have losing records. If you give up 17 to 20 points, all but three of the QBs have winning records. So to win in this league, it’s a direct correlation to how many points you’re giving up.”

Is this accurate? Well, yes, technically it is accurate! With nothing else to do on a Saturday but compile QB WINZ I found Snead is pretty spot on.

Here are the 21 quarterbacks with 45 or more starts since 2012 and each quarterback’s corresponding record for various scoring stats.

So, yeah, Snead’s point about needing to not give up a lot of points is a salient one because even the best quarterbacks struggle to win when their teams give up 25 points or more. On the other hand, the league as a whole isn’t particularly good at winning games when giving up 25 points per game. Since 2012, NFL teams that gave up 25 points or more were 151-646, good for a winning percentage of 18.4 percent.

Not good!

The quarterbacks in question here are 101-327-2. That’s a winning percentage of 23.5, without everyone admitting Ryan Fitzpatrick shouldn’t count and his 0-17 record should be removed.

Let’s actually remove all of those games, by the way. Take out these quarterbacks you don’t need (according to Snead’s metrics), and the rest of the record for NFL quarterbacks from 2012-2015 when someone scores 25 points against their team is an embarrassing 50-319. 13.5 percent!

You don’t win in the NFL when you give up a lot of points, but you certainly don’t win in the NFL when you give up a lot of points and have a bad quarterback.

So from that perspective, Snead’s logic is faulty. The good news is the approach doesn’t have to sink the Rams permanently. Or even this year.

Will the Rams really roll with Case Keenum? (USATSI) Will the Rams really roll with Case Keenum? (USATSI)

The quarterback market

Everyone knows there aren’t enough quarterbacks. But there’s also a situation now where, at least in terms of quarterback economics, there’s a little bit of saturation in the market. Unlike five years ago, there aren’t 10-plus teams desperately in need of a new signal caller.

Could the Dolphins potentially be looking at moving on from Tannehill? Sure. Are the Bears thrilled with Cutler forever? Probably not. But a large portion of NFL teams are locked into quarterbacks.

Enter Snead, Fisher and the Rams, along with their attempt to claim Keenum is the guy. Think about the market right now relative to where the Rams stand.

The Browns need to figure things out but just signed Robert Griffin III. They will probably take a quarterback No. 2 overall.

The 49ers and Eagles are the only other teams in contention for a quarterback between the top of the draft and Los Angeles as things stand right now. San Francisco is coming to the harsh reality about Colin Kaepernick’s trade market. The Browns are out after the Griffin signing.

The Broncos are the only team remaining capable of making a deal. They’re not going to give up a second-round pick and don’t own a third-round pick.

San Francisco can’t get value back at the moment, which means likely holding onto Kap. If they have Kap and Blaine Gabbert on the roster, can the 49ers really eschew better talent in a critical bounce back year with Chip Kelly to take another quarterback like local-ish product Jared Goff? If you think you can land a franchise quarterback in the draft you take him, but if you’ve already got one on the roster you don’t make the move. The 49ers might have one — don’t forget Kap is listed on the table above.

Philadelphia just committed lots of money to Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel. Not the most promising future at quarterback, but there’s a lot guaranteed money committed over the next two years. There is also an expectation of a bounce back from the Eagles. Drafting a quarterback like Goff and sitting him while figuring out what to do with Bradford and Daniel. The Eagles are sitting on a top-10 pick, which sets them up for a quarterback. But their No. 8 selection also puts them in a position to land one of the premiere players in this draft.

If you consider Myles Jack, Jalen Ramsey, Laremy Tunsil, Joey Bosa, Carson Wentz/Jared Goff, Ezekiel Elliott, DeForest Buckner and Ronnie Stanley certifiable prospects in this draft, then anything within the top-eight picks is an OK selection. You’re going to get a high-quality player and have the opportunity to move up or down depending on how things shake out up top.

So, again, the Rams. They understand the same things here. The 49ers and Eagles, because of how things unfolded in free agency, aren’t as likely to take quarterbacks as they were a few weeks or months ago.

The Browns are still likely to take a quarterback but not guaranteed. Maybe they pass for purposes of rebuilding based on talent. Maybe they trade down in order to stockpile picks and let someone else take Wentz at No. 2.

The Cowboys are a wild card, but it feels more and more like they’ll lean towards getting someone for this year to help them on the defensive side of the ball.

Los Angeles is sitting at No. 15, and the draft economics say they probably have one team taking a quarterback in front of them. They also have a group of teams from No. 9 through No. 14 who would love to trade down.

The Broncos (No. 31) and Jets (No. 20) are the only real competition and face a far steeper climb up the board to acquire a quarterback.

So if the Rams, despite what their professed analytics say, want to take a quarterback in this draft, and want to reboot with a smart, quick-throwing quarterback who will appeal to the L.A. market, well, they’re secretly in great position to chase Goff.

There’s a good chance he could drop outside of the top eight picks. If he does, the Rams could be primed to pounce because, of all things, they decided to stand pat during the free-agency market and simply pretend like Case Keenum is their quarterback of the future.

A history of this

Fisher and Snead are pretty good at their jobs and nice human beings. But let’s not pretend they’re not willing to lie to the media about the idea of where they sit on the quarterback. Any half-decent GM or coach should be willing to spin up some half-truths, and the Rams front office is no different.

Just over a year ago the Rams were locked on Bradford as the quarterback of the future. At the combine, CBS Sports NFL Insider Jason La Canfora reported the Rams were willing to let Bradford seek a trade. Fisher emphatically denied the report. Like, really emphatically.

And then they traded him for Nick Foles.

Keenum isn’t some franchise savior. The Rams could easily go out and find someone better. No someone capable of winning 23 percent of their games where the team gives up 25 or more points, but someone better.

And the place to find it? The draft. Thanks to how the Rams slow-played the market, either as a result of luck, accidental genius or a brilliant marketing strategy involving limited action in free agency, Los Angeles has an opportunity to pick up a prime quarterback prospect when things fall their way.

What happens if you look at this data from the opposite side?

Since 2012, NFL teams that gave up 25 points or more were 151-646, good for a winning percentage of 18.4 percent.

If you team scores 25 points or more, you will win 81.6 percent of the time. 😉

Long ago, it was said that playoff teams scored 24pts/game and allowed 21pts/game. This seems like a rehash of that. imo