Jeff Fisher picked the Rams over the Dolphins in 2012 because of the presence of what he felt was a franchise QB. We all know that Sam Bradford turned out to be more of an enigma than a Franchise QB, but Fisher pulled for Sammy B through a multitude of injuries - up to and including 2 ACLs.
Despite offers of obtaining another 1st round pick in exchange for $am, the Rams decided that they wanted Nick Foles and struck a deal with the Eagles. After all that time spent backing Bradford, Fisher dumped him fairly unceremoniously. Now, Foles seems to be suffering the same fate.
With a penchant for defending his QBs, why would Fisher seemingly abandon the QB that he swapped for Bradford? It's not like the team is loaded with talent at the position, but they seem to be more comfortable with Case Keenum - which is confusing at best.
Looking back at Foles' 2015 campaign, it's fairly easy to see a drastic change in his performance that centers on the game the Rams played in Lambeau against the Packers.
The Rams were 2-2 in the first four games of the 2015 season. By most measures, Foles was playing well too. Check out a quick stat line of his total and per game stats in the first quarter of the 2015 season. I'll take it a step further and extrapolate it into a full season as well.
|4 Game Total||70||111||63.1||815||5||1|
|Per Game Average||17.5||27.75||63.1||203.75||1.25||.25|
Looking at that projected season is pretty nice. Sure he wouldn't have blown anyone away, but that's efficient - and what the Rams need from their QBs. They don't need an All-World QB. Hand the ball off to Gurley, don't turn the ball over, and let the defense go to work.
Like I said before, there's a stark difference in Foles' performance. Take a gander - again with the numbers if he played at this level for an entire season.
|7 Game Total||120||226||53.1||1237||2||9|
|Per Game Average||17.1||32.3||53.1||176.7||.29||1.29|
That's FUGLY - and the reason that Foles got benched. I think Fisher could have lived with the low yardage and completion percentage, but the turnovers were too much to overlook.
What caused the drastic change in Foles' play? I think this had something to do with it.
That's about as vicious of a hit as you'll see on a QB in the NFL nowadays. And the effects of it obviously lingered far longer than the bye week that followed the Rams loss to Green Bay.
Now it'd be one thing if the Rams had a 'QB of the Future' that they were turning to in their scramble to dump Foles. But they don't. They have a journeyman who is a placeholder at best - and a disaster at worst.
|5 Game Totals||76||125||60.8||828||4||1|
|Per Game Average||15.2||25||60.8||165.6||.8||.2|
Now the lack of turnovers is nice and all, but 2650 yards is LESS than the Rams offense that we all want to so desperately fix in the draft. Forget all the nonsense about 'almost' going 5-0 as a starter. Let's not forget that the Rams were a dropped Lance Kendricks pass away from being 3-1 in Weeks 1-5.
Pre-Hit Foles vs. Keenum
Both QBs at their best have the ability to protect the football. But Foles does more while keeping the D on the sideline. It's clear to me that Foles is the better option - so why isn't Fisher backing Foles like he backed Bradford?
Why Not Stick with Foles?
Maybe it's a lack of track record together. Maybe it's because he's not tied to Foles long term. The fact of the matter is that Fisher - regardless of justification - has decided not to commit to Foles. You'd think that a year after acquiring him for Bradford, he would still hold value to the franchise.
Is it hypocrisy? You better believe it. But The sad reality for Rams fans is that Fisher is gonna Fisher.