The Cowboys should sign Keenum, and let Dak decide what to do next

KJJ

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
56,994
Reaction score
35,091
stasheroo said:
And stunk without him as well.

The Vikings were 13-3 with Keenum.

How does that factor into your math?
Click to expand...

Of course they stunk they were playing with a rookie QB that wasn’t ready to play. All Keenum had to do was be a game manager in Minnesota because they had a solid team. He passed for less than 3600 yards and only had 22 TDs that season in Minnesota. The Vikings knew he wasn’t the answer which is why they let him walk and paid Kurt Cousins all that money. So are you saying Keenum would be a better option than Dak? Let’s see if your math can factor Keenum into being a better option at QB than what we have.
 
Stash

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,373
Reaction score
102,312
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Super_Kazuya said:
You're a troll who can barely add two numbers and can't even remember what they posted five minutes ago
You deal with that fact.
Click to expand...

Cry some more.

Use more name-calling.

It's clearly your thing.

InsignificantCapitalGroundhog-size_restricted.gif
 
Stash

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,373
Reaction score
102,312
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
KJJ said:
Of course they stunk they were playing with a rookie QB that wasn’t ready to play. All Keenum had to do was be a game manager in Minnesota because they had a solid team. He passed for less than 3600 yards and only had 22 TDs that season in Minnesota. The Vikings knew he wasn’t the answer which is why they let him walk and paid Kurt Cousins all that money. So are you saying Keenum would be a better option than Dak?
Click to expand...

I'll use your own words against you if I have to:

"He passed for less than 3600 yards and only had 22 TDs that season in Minnesota"

That same year Dak threw for "less than 3400 yards and only had 22 TDs that season in Dallas.

Dak had 13 INT's to Keenum's 7.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,520
Reaction score
17,880
ABQCOWBOY said:
Well, Keenum is an FA this year so I think it's safe to view him as an option but you are right, there is no guarantee. Now, there are reason why you look at a Keenum but lets be fair here. I have said over and over "Keenum or some other Vet". IE, an experienced QB. The record is the measuring stick no matter what. That's the reason everybody plays and everybody watches. Nobody tunes in or pays hundreds of bucks to watch games because they want to see their teams lose. That's not the deal. I mean, you want to give yourself the best possible chance to win and I get that but honestly, and I said this earlier but it got ingnored, you don't know if Dak is the best QB for McCarthy's offense. Keenum is very capable and he's never ever played with the talent Dak has around him, even the 2017 Vikings were not as talented IMO. Now, they were the better team, for sure, but not as talented IMO. So what have we seen from Dak that suggests he will be better in a WCO, then say a Keenum or some other option? I haven't seen anything. Lets take it a step further and say, what have we seen that even makes us think that Dak will be in camp this year and not sitting out? Who do we have on our roster who can come in and start a season for us? Doesn't it seem like you might want to find a guy who can come in and be your starter if need be or at least a quality backup? Doesn't it also make sense to have that guy be somebody who has experience in the WCO and somebody who actually fits it? I'd think that this would be exactly what you want to bring in.

BTW, Keenum, on the only good team he's ever had, went 13-3. I don't know if you can say that Keenum has never been good. I think that's inaccurate. I guess it depends on how you measure success. I mean, he's had at least as much success as has Dak so what's the real measure here? IDK.
Click to expand...
you don't know if Dak can't play in McCarthy's system. you don't know if Keenum can play in that system? how can you say we don't know dak can play in MC's system, but Keenum is capable!!….

and we know Keenum is not capable. he is below average, given he has had losing records (since you said, that's the measuring stick) every where he has been, except for Minn, where he had a dominant #1 over defense and a top 10 rushing attack. without those two things he was among the worst.

so in regards to dak, I have argued and you can search up my posts from this past summer, I always thought he was a better fit for a WCO than a timing drop back offense that garrett and linehan were forcing him to...he is better thrower on the move and he is better in making the short quick throws and the medium throws...I think he will be a better QB if we are going to a WCO.

so you have circled back to you original argument....we don't know what will happen with Dak, so lets essentially move on....but like you said, we don't know. FA hasn't even started. nobody has been tagged yet. so there is a room full of assumptions on your argument....I don't think anyone is going to knock the doors down and rush to sign Keenum. we can take our time. see how things work and he can be option C, which will defintley put us in a rebuild mode, given he is 31, a journey man, never been dominant and is not going to get us to the big dance....

going for keenum first, is throwing in the towel, so if we do that, we might as well tear it all up and restart.
 
Super_Kazuya

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
CowboysFaninHouston said:
you don't know if Dak can't play in McCarthy's system. you don't know if Keenum can play in that system? how can you say we don't know dak can play in MC's system, but Keenum is capable!!….

and we know Keenum is not capable. he is below average, given he has had losing records (since you said, that's the measuring stick) every where he has been, except for Minn, where he had a dominant #1 over defense and a top 10 rushing attack. without those two things he was among the worst.
Click to expand...

Imagine the lack of awareness a troll has to have to make excuses for Keenum having a good season because of help and then mentioning Dak Prescott in the same breath.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,520
Reaction score
17,880
stasheroo said:
I'll use your own words against you if I have to:

"He passed for less than 3600 yards and only had 22 TDs that season in Minnesota"

That same year Dak threw for "less than 3400 yards and only had 22 TDs that season in Dallas.

Dak had 13 INT's to Keenum's 7.
Click to expand...
I will use your own logic there.

Keenum was a veteran on a solid team with the #1 defense, Dak was a Rookie with the #14 defense....and as a Rookie he threw for only 200 yards less....sorry...you lose again
 
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
KJJ said:
No, and one of the main reasons were they weren’t getting solid QB play, which is why Keenum was benched and replaced by Haskins. Haskins wasn’t even ready to play but Washington had no choice to make the move because Keenan wasn’t getting it done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't agree. The fan base was screaming for Haskins before the season ever started. Most people who really know the skins and watch football were against that move. If you look at Keenum early, here is what you see.

Against:
Philly 30/44, 68.2 Comp%, 380 yds, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 117.0
Dal 26/37, 70.27 Comp %, 221 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 103.5
Chi 30/43, 69.77 Comp %, 332 yds, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, Rate 78.8
NYG 6/11, 54.55 Comp %, 37 yds, 0 TDs, 1 INTs, Rate 23.7 (Keenum injured in this game, walking boot)
Mia 13/25, 52.0 Comp %, 166 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 99.7
SFO 9/12, 75.0 Comp %, 77 yds, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 91.3
Min 12/16, 75.0 Comp %, 130 yds, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 87.4
DET DNP
NYG 16/22, 72.73 Comp %, 158 Yds, 1 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 107.8
Dal 18/37, 48.65 Comp %, 206 Yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, Rate 63.6

Season: 160/247, 64.78%, 1707 Yds, 11 TDs, 5 INTs, Rate 91.3

So if you look at his early games, before the injury, he would have likely had a monster season. As it was, playing hurt through the rest of the season and sharing time with Haskins etc., he still had pretty decent numbers. The idea that Keenum was terrible in Washington is just not true and the Skins were bad all over. That's not a good team over there IMO. I think he played a lot better then people give him credit for.

JMO
 
OmerV

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,916
Reaction score
22,440
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
stasheroo said:
OK, so now it's an "anomaly"...

The lengths people will go to...
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He’s been in the NFL 8 years and never had any other year close to that level. How is 1 year out of 8 not considered an anomaly?
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,520
Reaction score
17,880
Super_Kazuya said:
Imagine the lack of awareness a troll has to have to make excuses for Keenum having a good season because of help and then mentioning Dak Prescott in the same breath.
Click to expand...
you must have reading comprehension problem? or selective attention? if you claim and point to Dak being dependent, yet ignore the same for Keenum? It was pointed out to you, yet you still make excuses for a pathetic loser like keenum? you guys must be related....it was clearly shown that if Dak is dependent, then Keenum is the same but he needs more help than Dak...but I guess you hate facts because it conflicts with you imagination
 
Stash

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,373
Reaction score
102,312
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
CowboysFaninHouston said:
I will use your own logic there.

Keenum was a veteran on a solid team with the #1 defense, Dak was a Rookie with the #14 defense....and as a Rookie he threw for only 200 yards less....sorry...you lose again
Click to expand...

I've "lost" nothing. And you don't even have your years accurate. These are 2017 stats and Dak was a 2nd year player, not a rookie. You "lose" there too.

Neither quarterback's numbers had jack to do with how well their defense performed. The Dallas defense didn't throw for less yards and more interceptions. I know who's "lost" here. It's not me.

Do better if you want to come at me.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,520
Reaction score
17,880
ABQCOWBOY said:
Yeah, I don't agree. The fan base was screaming for Haskins before the season ever started. Most people who really know the skins and watch football were against that move. If you look at Keenum early, here is what you see.

Against:
Philly 30/44, 68.2 Comp%, 380 yds, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 117.0
Dal 26/37, 70.27 Comp %, 221 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 103.5
Chi 30/43, 69.77 Comp %, 332 yds, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, Rate 78.8
NYG 6/11, 54.55 Comp %, 37 yds, 0 TDs, 1 INTs, Rate 23.7 (Keenum injured in this game, walking boot)
Mia 13/25, 52.0 Comp %, 166 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 99.7
SFO 9/12, 75.0 Comp %, 77 yds, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 91.3
Min 12/16, 75.0 Comp %, 130 yds, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 87.4
DET DNP
NYG 16/22, 72.73 Comp %, 158 Yds, 1 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 107.8
Dal 18/37, 48.65 Comp %, 206 Yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, Rate 63.6

Season: 160/247, 64.78%, 1707 Yds, 11 TDs, 5 INTs, Rate 91.3

So if you look at his early games, before the injury, he would have likely had a monster season. As it was, playing hurt through the rest of the season and sharing time with Haskins etc., he still had pretty decent numbers. The idea that Keenum was terrible in Washington is just not true and the Skins were bad all over. That's not a good team over there IMO. I think he played a lot better then people give him credit for.

JMO
Click to expand...
keenum is a has been who perhaps never was. a 31 year old below average QB who has been on 6 teams and released every time..

so you want to tell us you know more than 6 FOs and their coaching staff...including John Elway and Mike Zimmer? right?
 
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
KJJ said:
Sure, they still probably would have been bad but Dak wouldn’t of ended up getting benched. They would have gotten better play from him than what they have at the position. Keenum wouldn’t have gotten benched if the Commanders didn’t think he was part of the problem. They wouldn’t have used a first round pick on Haskins if they thought Keenum was the answer.
Click to expand...

That benched thing was more about Haskins and Keenum's injury. I mean, if Dak was in Washington and he landed in a walking boot, as did Keenum, and you had a young QB that everybody wanted to see, yeah he would have. It would have been exactly the same IMO. Washington brought in Keenum to hold down the fort until Haskins was ready. Unfortunately, the HC was in deep water from the jump and they weren't patient with Haskins. That's the real truth in that whole crapshow IMO.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,520
Reaction score
17,880
OmerV said:
He’s been in the NFL 8 years and never had any other year close to that level. How is 1 year out of 8 not considered an anomaly?
Click to expand...
because according to them, none of those years count, because it punches holes in their imaginative theories.....the one year that counts is the one that helps them make a stupid argument...yet less dismiss the fact that Dak has never had a losing season in 4 years.....

they can't eve stick to their own line of argument...its like they got their short tied up in a knot and sinking in quick sand at the same time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top