Davis

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Irish

Starter
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
962
The problem is the elation isn't there. Instead people would rather beat the drum about how our former 3rd stringer isn't playing the greatest football ever. That's how the site that shall not be named started on it's trek to where it is now. People would see wins, immediately come on to gripe and when people would call them out about it they'd say the same thing, "Oh it's okay to be happy and be upset at bad play too." Except the happiness never came. Soon after the personal feelings and things started flying and it's the hellhole it is today. Lots of us here watched it happen, so a lot of us are shellshocked and don't want to see that happen again.
Yeah, I get that.

I, myself, was in a movie with my wife at the time because I couldn't bring myself to watch another Blue and Gold bloodbath. Imagine my surprise when I left the theater to see the Rams had shocked the football world and beat San Francisco! However, watching the game later, specifically Davis's first half, and it is even more unbelievable that the Rams were able to overcome. Davis could have easily had 4 picks in the game. Thank God Harbaugh and co. didn't know that both Anquan Bolden and Frank Gore dominate the Rams and they could find a play for either guy to get 2 yards.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,751
Name
Stu
I wouldn't have even posted in here if I hadn't seen so many people piling on jrry and no one saying anything about it. It's not like jrry and I agree all the time or even most of the time, I just wanted to point it out.

You and I have different definitions of piling on then. Jrry asserted something about Davis' three years worth of experience that several had a problem with. I still have a problem with the idea that Davis' three years somehow compares even remotely to the first three years of players like Rodgers, Rivers, or even Quick. It honestly boggles my mind to think that the player experiences when it comes to being prepared as a starter compare at all. But it is an opinion. If you are going to offer something like that up then shouldn't you also expect to defend it?
 

HometownBoy

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
3,527
Name
Aaron
Yeah, I get that.

I, myself, was in a movie with my wife at the time because I couldn't bring myself to watch another Blue and Gold bloodbath. Imagine my surprise when I left the theater to see the Rams had shocked the football world and beat San Francisco! However, watching the game later, specifically Davis's first half, and it is even more unbelievable that the Rams were able to overcome. Davis could have easily had 4 picks in the game. Thank God Harbaugh and co. didn't know that both Anquan Bolden and Frank Gore dominate the Rams and they could find a play for either guy to get 2 yards.
And you're free to do that, be upset over his play all you want. It was atrocious and there's no denying that, but the problem people have with it is when it takes precedence over the fact that YOUR team WON. Our team won and it doesn't even amount to as much as being mad about something and arguing the same argument that's been had since Dallas, it's just scary because this was the beginning of the end for something that started out a great place to discussion sports.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,786
Do you have examples? I haven't seen abusive comments but I have to say that there is a real drum beat among some members who want to see Hill in place of Davis. That's fine and all but don't act like you haven't taken this up as some sort of cause. Are you saying you didn't start the "undefeated" thread in order to bang the drum? It's just that it is not a few comments in one thread.

Personally, people labeling me(and my argument) as being disingenuous or dishonest really made me mad. I wouldn't say it's an abusive comment but I would say it's disrespectful and uncalled for. Which is why I opted to end the discussion.

I stated a fact, explained why I thought it was relevant, and was accused of basically being dishonest. It's not like I haven't defended Davis. It's not like I harped on Davis when he played well. It's not like I have some vendetta against the guy. I simply have an opinion of the guy.

There's no rule on this board that you must always be positive. I try not to be negative but I will never hold back criticisms of players because it's unpopular. I try to be as honest as the homer in me allows.

I really don't feel like it's fair to posters on this board to have accusations made against their integrity and motives if they express an opinion that criticizes a Rams player even if it isn't popular. It's never going to be perfect, with this being an internet forum and all, but I don't think it was an overreaction for myself or anyone else here to be peeved when people dismiss a valid argument by claiming a motive or agenda or dishonesty...unless it actually applies.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
You and I have different definitions of piling on then. Jrry asserted something about Davis' three years worth of experience that several had a problem with. I still have a problem with the idea that Davis' three years somehow compares even remotely to the first three years of players like Rodgers, Rivers, or even Quick. It honestly boggles my mind to think that the player experiences when it comes to being prepared as a starter compare at all. But it is an opinion. If you are going to offer something like that up then shouldn't you also expect to defend it?

I have no problem with open debate and I wasn't implicating you. I have a problem with a person who makes an unpopular suggestion getting piled on, assigned false motives, and treated like an outcast with no reaction from the community to halt it. Somehow, after making a post in support of jrry, my second post in this thread, I became responsible for 12 pages of Hill vs Davis. Not sure how that works.

I'm not interested in discussing this further.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,786
And you're free to do that, be upset over his play all you want. It was atrocious and there's no denying that, but the problem people have with it is when it takes precedence over the fact that YOUR team WON. Our team won and it doesn't even amount to as much as being mad about something and arguing the same argument that's been had since Dallas, it's just scary because this was the beginning of the end for something that started out a great place to discussion sports.

How would you know if it did or didn't? Because I am frustrated with Davis's play, I can't be happy the team won? This is a message board. This topic was created to discuss Davis. I can criticize Davis while being excited about the Rams. Frankly, I think I've earned that. I stay very positive in the off-season, remained positive after Sam's injury, and even tried to be positive after our rough start. I have earned the right to criticize a player for not performing in a win. That game shouldn't have been close. Yet it was a nail-biter that we could have easily lost had the refs called that last play a TD on the field rather than a fumble. I don't see how it says anything about how I felt about the win if I came on here after the game and criticized Davis for more or less keeping SF in that game. I don't want to die young. Games like that are going to kill me by 25. :LOL:
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
jrry32 just wanting to discuss all things Ram:
How would you know if it did or didn't? Because I am frustrated with Davis's play, I can't be happy the team won? This is a message board. This topic was created to discuss Davis. I can criticize Davis while being excited about the Rams. Frankly, I think I've earned that. I stay very positive in the off-season, remained positive after Sam's injury, and even tried to be positive after our rough start. I have earned the right to criticize a player for not performing in a win. That game shouldn't have been close. Yet it was a nail-biter that we could have easily lost had the refs called that last play a TD on the field rather than a fumble. I don't see how it says anything about how I felt about the win if I came on here after the game and criticized Davis for more or less keeping SF in that game. I don't want to die young. Games like that are going to kill me by 25. :LOL:
(y)
I think sometimes people over react and over analyze looking for agendas. Keep on keeping on bro. I think the problem here is that despite our amazing victory over the Whiners, there isn't enough real positive stuff to talk about. This too shall pass.

It's a very fine line that our mods have to walk so lets all cut them a HUGE amount of slack, silently acknowledge the great job they do every day and move on to the next topic. I think the Hill versus Davis debate s just about played out eh? :)
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,786
(y)
I think sometimes people over react and over analyze looking for agendas. Keep on keeping on bro. I think the problem here is that despite our amazing victory over the Whiners, there isn't enough real positive stuff to talk about. This too shall pass.

It's a very fine line that our mods have to walk so lets all cut them a HUGE amount of slack, silently acknowledge the great job they do every day and move on to the next topic. I think the Hill versus Davis debate s just about played out eh? :)

Now the question is...Donald vs. Quinn? Which guy is playing better right now? :LOL:
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
jrry32 seeing illusions:
Now the question is...Donald vs. Quinn? Which guy is playing better right now? :LOL:
As usual jrry, you have it all wrong. Had you actually been watching the games, you'd know it was Langford. Jeez! :palm:
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,751
Name
Stu
Personally, people labeling me(and my argument) as being disingenuous or dishonest really made me mad. I wouldn't say it's an abusive comment but I would say it's disrespectful and uncalled for. Which is why I opted to end the discussion.

I stated a fact, explained why I thought it was relevant, and was accused of basically being dishonest. It's not like I haven't defended Davis. It's not like I harped on Davis when he played well. It's not like I have some vendetta against the guy. I simply have an opinion of the guy.

There's no rule on this board that you must always be positive. I try not to be negative but I will never hold back criticisms of players because it's unpopular. I try to be as honest as the homer in me allows.

I really don't feel like it's fair to posters on this board to have accusations made against their integrity and motives if they express an opinion that criticizes a Rams player even if it isn't popular. It's never going to be perfect, with this being an internet forum and all, but I don't think it was an overreaction for myself or anyone else here to be peeved when people dismiss a valid argument by claiming a motive or agenda or dishonesty...unless it actually applies.
I didn't see the claim of an agenda until today's posts. I did see - because I was one of the people involved in the discussion - the description of what you posted as disingenuous/dishonest. And to be honest, I still don't see how you defend a stance that has Davis' experience in his first three seasons is even close to on par with the likes of Rodgers, Rivers, or even Quick if you are not intentionally ignoring the amount of quality playing and practice time they clearly would have gotten that Davis has not.

The reason being is that I know you do a lot of research on the game. I realize that much of it centers around college prospects but that's not all you look at. If you look back, I don't think you can find me saying anything about the idea that you shouldn't be thinking Hill should start over Davis. That is just an opinion that you hold from what you have observed and that is fine. I don't even disagree with the idea that you could be right in THAT.

But sorry - you brought up the comparisons to prove your point that Davis is no more a rookie than Rodgers or Rivers even though no one was really saying he was an actual rookie - only that he doesn't have all that much more real NFL experience than one. None of us said it was wasted time or anything as you asserted we were saying. Just not even close to the same.

To me, that is purposely ignoring the facts that didn't lend to your argument. If that is an incorrect take and you do honestly believe that their experiences are similar, then I don't know what to say.

But I also don't think you helped yourself with the "don't waste my time" comments. I think you may have put a little more stock in people disagreeing with your assertions than were really there.

Anyway, The Davis vs Hill debate HAS been beat to death. I know it will still rage on unless something really changes but I will still step in to try to quell another Bulger/Warner war. And I will also call it like I see it.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
I consider Austin to be a rookie for all practical purposes. I just don't count holding a clipboard as "experience". When I think about where he is as a player I think rookie. That's not me ignoring the fact that by the legal definition he isn't. I can't think of another sport where not playing counts as being an experienced vet. But then that's why opinions vary on this subject.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,786
I didn't see the claim of an agenda until today's posts. I did see - because I was one of the people involved in the discussion - the description of what you posted as disingenuous/dishonest. And to be honest, I still don't see how you defend a stance that has Davis' experience in his first three seasons is even close to on par with the likes of Rodgers, Rivers, or even Quick if you are not intentionally ignoring the amount of quality playing and practice time they clearly would have gotten that Davis has not.

I don't need to. You all assumed an implication that wasn't there. Rodgers, Rivers, and Quick were invoked as examples of players who received benefits despite not playing or playing very little. That's inarguable. You all assumed that I was saying that Davis was in an equal situation to all when all I was saying was that there are major benefits and advantages that come with being on a team...even when you're not playing.

It would be like you comparing Quick to Terrell Owens and me saying, "Well, Quick doesn't have Terrell Owens's features, his hair, doesn't talk like him, etc." That's not the point. The discussion was framed around whether Davis being on the Rams those two years was relevant. I think it is.

And it stemmed from a poster discussing all these other players that get 3-4 years to prove themselves including Pead...and he included this season for Pead where he's on IR. To which I responded, that Davis is a 3rd year pro. That's where this discussion started. And the response to that simple comment, of course, was where the word disingenuous originated in this discussion based on Prime Time's interpretation of what he felt I might be implying. An implication I wasn't making.

The reason being is that I know you do a lot of research on the game. I realize that much of it centers around college prospects but that's not all you look at. If you look back, I don't think you can find me saying anything about the idea that you shouldn't be thinking Hill should start over Davis. That is just an opinion that you hold from what you have observed and that is fine. I don't even disagree with the idea that you could be right in THAT.

I could be wrong in that. I don't know. I'm just frustrated with his play in 3 of the last 4 games.

But sorry - you brought up the comparisons to prove your point that Davis is no more a rookie than Rodgers or Rivers even though no one was really saying he was an actual rookie - only that he doesn't have all that much more real NFL experience than one. None of us said it was wasted time or anything as you asserted we were saying. Just not even close to the same.

Eh...that was exaggeration...but some of you certainly marginalized what that time meant. And, in essence, claimed it didn't mean much of anything because it wasn't on the field experience on game day. Which I vehemently disagree with.

To me, that is purposely ignoring the facts that didn't lend to your argument. If that is an incorrect take and you do honestly believe that their experiences are similar, then I don't know what to say.

You scolded me earlier for saying something similar to this.

I didn't ignore facts. I ignored people pointing out why Rodgers and Rivers were in a different situation when it wasn't particularly material to the point I was making. Saying they received more practice time, more focus from coaches, etc. because they were the QBs of the future is great...but it ignores the crux of my argument. Unless you're arguing that Davis received none of the benefits that those guys received rather than just not getting the benefits to the SAME EXTENT.

But I also don't think you helped yourself with the "don't waste my time" comments. I think you may have put a little more stock in people disagreeing with your assertions than were really there.

Well, I was pretty darn angry at that point at people telling me that I was being dishonest, twisting my words, and claiming I was implying things because it suited the argument they were making. I don't like having words put in my mouth. I say more than enough for people to know how I feel and what I mean.

Anyway, The Davis vs Hill debate HAS been beat to death. I know it will still rage on unless something really changes but I will still step in to try to quell another Bulger/Warner war. And I will also call it like I see it.

I don't really think this is a Bulger/Warner war. I think the vast majority of us that are okay with going back to Hill don't feel that strongly about it. We're just frustrated with the poor play and clinging to the dying hope that this team can contend this year. Because we all want the Rams to win.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
It's a question of priorities @flv . Take out insurance or spend the capital on present needs. I would have done the same thing the Rams FO did and I'd be just as sorry about how it turned out as I am now. That doesn't mean it was a bad decision though. It was just a decision that didn't work out well.

In addition, I really didn't like any of the QBs in the draft. It would be different had there been a stud but IMO there wasn't.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,751
Name
Stu
I don't need to. You all assumed an implication that wasn't there. Rodgers, Rivers, and Quick were invoked as examples of players who received benefits despite not playing or playing very little. That's inarguable. You all assumed that I was saying that Davis was in an equal situation to all when all I was saying was that there are major benefits and advantages that come with being on a team...even when you're not playing.

It would be like you comparing Quick to Terrell Owens and me saying, "Well, Quick doesn't have Terrell Owens's features, his hair, doesn't talk like him, etc." That's not the point. The discussion was framed around whether Davis being on the Rams those two years was relevant. I think it is.

And it stemmed from a poster discussing all these other players that get 3-4 years to prove themselves including Pead...and he included this season for Pead where he's on IR. To which I responded, that Davis is a 3rd year pro. That's where this discussion started. And the response to that simple comment, of course, was where the word disingenuous originated in this discussion based on Prime Time's interpretation of what he felt I might be implying. An implication I wasn't making.
Hey man:

I'm just going to PM you. I don't think we are as far off on some of this as you think and I hope that you will see where I am coming from and even maybe decide to help us out.
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
10,715
Name
Scott
It's a question of priorities @flv . Take out insurance or spend the capital on present needs. I would have done the same thing the Rams FO did and I'd be just as sorry about how it turned out as I am now. That doesn't mean it was a bad decision though. It was just a decision that didn't work out well.

In addition, I really didn't like any of the QBs in the draft. It would be different had there been a stud but IMO there wasn't.
I think Carr could be a good one.
We can talk about it four years from now when we know for sure.;)
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
Dodgersrf liking Carr:
I think Carr could be a good one.
Had we drafted Carr he'd be playing behind our vaunted O-line right now. I wonder what that would do to his development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.