for 2014 - Why not Hill?

[Thordaddy]

I think Hill is the type of player that gives you the chance to win but he isn't going to be the winning factor. He will play solid as long as our defense doesn't make his job hard.

If our defense had played this well ALL ALONG, Davis would still be the starter and we'd be in the hunt for the division lead.
Tony Banks could win with this defense .

 

[RamzFanz]

A quick follow-up...

If you bother to search my few postings, I have had fairly positive things to say about Hill. As a backup, I think he is everything you could want. For instance, he can throw where Clemons had problems outside of the short game. That said, I am not someone who fell in love with him long ago and always felt he should be a starter, the saviour of mankind, blah, blah ...

The argument wasn't that he was the savior of mankind but that his experience and skill sets were what we needed with a weak O line. Quick decisions and able to move around in the pocket.

I'm 100% fine with Bradford / Hill but Rams had better lock him up soon. I hear Washington needs a QB.

 

[RamzFanz]

The interception he threw against San Diego. Even if we win out, we likely don't make it.

Really? That's why the Rams lost against the Chargers? He didn't do enough?

 

[Memphis Ram]

One thing for sure. If the Rams keep winning then Hill is giving the team some leverage with Bradford if and when that contract is discussed this offseason.

 

[jrry32]

Really? That's why the Rams lost against the Chargers? He didn't do enough?

No. More than one player is to blame. I'm just answering the question in a tongue in cheek manner. Hill's INT against SD was, unfortunately, the final nail in the coffin.

 

[moklerman]

One thing for sure. If the Rams keep winning then Hill is giving the team some leverage with Bradford if and when that contract is discussed this offseason.

I don't think so. They all know what they're dealing with and I think it's obvious that as nice as the wins are, the QB position is limiting this offense. Davis and Hill are both backup quality QB's both in terms of physical limitations and decision-making.

That's not to say that the Rams will force themselves to stick with Bradford but I don't think they'll base their decision on Hill being a viable starter for 2015 and beyond. The leverage they've got is Bradford's poor health history. Period.

I really don't see how they're going to do anything but pay him his last year. It's a high number but everyone in the room knows that extending him would be far too great a risk for the team but they can't just cut him either. I think they'll just pay him and see if he can at least stay healthy in 2015.

Maybe Bradford will restructure but I don't think he's got a big incentive to do so. If he's going to have to sign a "prove-it" deal, I think there would be quite a few suitors and that would give him leverage, not the Rams.

 

[Thordaddy]

No. More than one player is to blame. I'm just answering the question in a tongue in cheek manner. Hill's INT against SD was, unfortunately, the final nail in the coffin.

He'll be another year older next year ,his alleged "mobility" was certainly not on display today and like always when you win,the QB gets too much credit and when you lose they get too much blame.
As I said before with the defensive effort we have gotten recently instead of the no sacks start we had, the "need" to make a switch at QB wouild have been far less pressing and Davis could easily still be the starter. I don't think either of these guys are who we want as our starter next year and the idea that Hill is the reason we've turned a corner is IMO preposterous..
FWIW all we needed was TA's punt return to win this one.

I don't think either of these guys is the answer to our prayers , one is in decline the other may have a ceiling that is too low, continuing to throw the board into arguments over them is detracting from the ability to celebrate what is the real story here . We are finally playing to our potential on defense, if Hill had faced our defense today I don't think anyone would be bragging on him, we are 3-1 with Hill during which the defense has yielded 2 1/3 points per game when we won, including holding Denver to 7.

Often in this league a QB like Hill can stay in the league a long time as a backup and can give a team some good games then lose games like the San Diego game almost as if on Q . Kyle Orton ,Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mc Cown, Steve Deberg, and IMO Hill are some of those guys, fine as a backup, but not who you want to bet the future on.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I don't think so. They all know what they're dealing with and I think it's obvious that as nice as the wins are, the QB position is limiting this offense. Davis and Hill are both backup quality QB's both in terms of physical limitations and decision-making.

That's not to say that the Rams will force themselves to stick with Bradford but I don't think they'll base their decision on Hill being a viable starter for 2015 and beyond. The leverage they've got is Bradford's poor health history. Period.

I really don't see how they're going to do anything but pay him his last year. It's a high number but everyone in the room knows that extending him would be far too great a risk for the team but they can't just cut him either. I think they'll just pay him and see if he can at least stay healthy in 2015.

Maybe Bradford will restructure but I don't think he's got a big incentive to do so. If he's going to have to sign a "prove-it" deal, I think there would be quite a few suitors and that would give him leverage, not the Rams.

Period? The name of the game is winning football games. Doesn't matter how pretty it is or isn't. IMO, there no way that winning without him doesn't provide any leverage. And if earlier this season, the defense played even close to the way it is playing now, this team might even be challenging for the division title w/o Bradford.

BTW, while he might have some suitors, I also question how much he'd be willing to potentially change offenses again. Starting over again, might not be too appealing to him.

 

[RamzFanz]

No. More than one player is to blame. I'm just answering the question in a tongue in cheek manner. Hill's INT against SD was, unfortunately, the final nail in the coffin.

Ahhh, yep. It was the final nail.

 

[moklerman]

Period? The name of the game is winning football games. Doesn't matter how pretty it is or isn't. IMO, there no way that winning without him doesn't provide any leverage. And if the defense played the way it is playing now earlier this season, this team might even be challenging for the division title w/o Bradford.

BTW, while he might have some suitors, I also question how much he'd be willing to potentially change offenses again. Starting over again, might not be too appealing to him.

No, because the QB position is still limiting what the offense can do. The Rams won games in 2013 without Bradford but it still didn't mean the team could realistically act as if just bringing Kellen Clemens back was a viable alternative to a healthy Bradford.

 

[RamzFanz]

I don't think so. They all know what they're dealing with and I think it's obvious that as nice as the wins are, the QB position is limiting this offense. Davis and Hill are both backup quality QB's both in terms of physical limitations and decision-making.

That's not to say that the Rams will force themselves to stick with Bradford but I don't think they'll base their decision on Hill being a viable starter for 2015 and beyond. The leverage they've got is Bradford's poor health history. Period.

I really don't see how they're going to do anything but pay him his last year. It's a high number but everyone in the room knows that extending him would be far too great a risk for the team but they can't just cut him either. I think they'll just pay him and see if he can at least stay healthy in 2015.

Maybe Bradford will restructure but I don't think he's got a big incentive to do so. If he's going to have to sign a "prove-it" deal, I think there would be quite a few suitors and that would give him leverage, not the Rams.

Yeah but what does he earn in a prove it deal? I just can't see any team offering him a lot with his history. It would really suck for him to walk away from this team and go to a sucky team just to be a "remember how much promise that guy had" player. If he wants money in the long run, he needs to be on a good team to showcase his skills for an entire season.

It would be a really bad decision for him not to rework his contract to a reasonable amount after all he's been paid and the potential for success here IMHO.

 

[RamzFanz]

No, because the QB position is still limiting what the offense can do. The Rams won games in 2013 without Bradford but it still didn't mean the team could realistically act as if just bringing Kellen Clemens back was a viable alternative to a healthy Bradford.

If the Rams win out, they will be 6-1 under Hill who has put up 122 points to 36 so far. You don't think that's a viable alternative that Bradford will need to consider?

 

[dieterbrock]

One thing for sure. If the Rams keep winning then Hill is giving the team some leverage with Bradford if and when that contract is discussed this offseason.

Absolutely
Team is 3-1 since Hill returned as the starter
Say they win 2 of last 3 and he's 5-2?
That is leverage big time
There's no reason to pay bradford 13 mill next season

 

[moklerman]

Absolutely
Team is 3-1 since Hill returned as the starter
Say they win 2 of last 3 and he's 5-2?
That is leverage big time
There's no reason to pay bradford 13 mill next season

Jeez you guys, it was the Raiders and Redskins and the defense, special teams and running game are what's clicking right now. QB play needs to be improved. Hill is missing plays that need to be made and he and Davis have been insulated in the offense for the most part.

If that's what they want to do moving forward, then I agree they don't pay Bradford. But I don't think one can plan on the defense riding this wave forever and Bradford likely won't restructure much less just take a pay cut. Not to just do a favor for the team. He'll need to be extended with a restructure.

This is the same conversation that was being had last year after the Colts and Bears games victories. The Rams don't need to pay for a QB, just keep Clemens. It's the same thing with SF right now. You can't just sit back and rely on the defense to always shut the other team out. Look at Cleveland.

It's all the same thing. Bradford's got health issues for sure but he's also got talent and there is a real shortage of that at the QB position in the NFL. He will have suitors if the Rams choose to "leverage" him and he'll go somewhere else.

 

[RamzFanz]

Jeez you guys, it was the Raiders and Redskins and the defense, special teams and running game are what's clicking right now. QB play needs to be improved. Hill is missing plays that need to be made and he and Davis have been insulated in the offense for the most part.

If that's what they want to do moving forward, then I agree they don't pay Bradford. But I don't think one can plan on the defense riding this wave forever and Bradford likely won't restructure much less just take a pay cut. Not to just do a favor for the team. He'll need to be extended with a restructure.

This is the same conversation that was being had last year after the Colts and Bears games victories. The Rams don't need to pay for a QB, just keep Clemens. It's the same thing with SF right now. You can't just sit back and rely on the defense to always shut the other team out. Look at Cleveland.

It's all the same thing. Bradford's got health issues for sure but he's also got talent and there is a real shortage of that at the QB position in the NFL. He will have suitors if the Rams choose to "leverage" him and he'll go somewhere else.

I think you're underestimating how much Bradford needs the Rams to revive his career. Would someone pay him his full salary on a flier in a new system? I think not. Would he want to leave a system he knows, that was designed for him, and that is stacked at talent where he could become a star QB? I doubt it. I think he would take a new play to pay for his own good.

You forgot that it was also Denver and he played more than good enough to win in SD. If he wins out it will also be the Cards and Seattle at home. That's pretty convincing. 122-36 is a far cry from riding the defense.

 

[jrry32]

I think you're underestimating how much Bradford needs the Rams to revive his career. Would someone pay him his full salary on a flier in a new system? I think not. Would he want to leave a system he knows, that was designed for him, and that is stacked at talent where he could become a star QB? I doubt it. I think he would take a new play to pay for his own good.

You forgot that it was also Denver and he played more than good enough to win in SD. If he wins out it will also be the Cards and Seattle at home. That's pretty convincing. 122-36 is a far cry from riding the defense.

No, he didn't. He turned it over three times. One went for a TD. And one ended the game. He did not play well enough to win that game. The Rams as a team ALMOST played well enough to win but Hill played poorly.

Bradford definitely could use the Rams but if he were to hit FA, he'd have suitors and a starting job. But no, he wouldn't get paid as much in 2015.

 

[badnews]

I think Shaun Hill is being way under appreciated here.
He has warts, but for all the talk about the defense putting it together, I don't think it's a coincidence that it happened once Hill became the QB and opened up the offense, keeping the other team off the field more and our defense rested.
He got it done against the Denver D. They are very good.
He did enough against the chargers D on the road (minus 1 brainfart)
Finally, he has had very good days against bad teams, which good QBs do and typical backups don't always.

 

[RamzFanz]

No, he didn't. He turned it over three times. One went for a TD. And one ended the game. He did not play well enough to win that game. The Rams as a team ALMOST played well enough to win but Hill played poorly.

Bradford definitely could use the Rams but if he were to hit FA, he'd have suitors and a starting job. But no, he wouldn't get paid as much in 2015.

Dude, he took the Rams into field goal position to have it blocked. He threw 2 TDs that were called back, one a beautiful long pass to Britt. He threw several first downs that were called back. He didn't just play well enough to win, he played well enough to dominate. The rest of the team let him down and Schotty put him in a bad spot.

The team wouldn't have even been in a position for a last minute score without his plays. We still put up 24 points on the #9 D in the league in his SECOND full game as a Ram!

Do you know how many teams have put up more than that all season against the chargers? TWO and those teams lost. Not Peyton Manning, not Tom Brady, not Wilson or Palmer. HILL did in his SECOND full start and he should have had a lot more.

He WILL throw picks, ALL QBs do, and he threw one that was at the worst possible time but if the rest of the team had been more disciplined, that was a W all day long.

 

[Thordaddy]

No, he didn't. He turned it over three times. One went for a TD. And one ended the game. He did not play well enough to win that game. The Rams as a team ALMOST played well enough to win but Hill played poorly.

Bradford definitely could use the Rams but if he were to hit FA, he'd have suitors and a starting job. But no, he wouldn't get paid as much in 2015.

Yeah the claims are getting outlandish, we were up 24-3 against Dallas and people put the loss on Davis we come back and have a shot at winning against Philly from a deficit the defense allowed and it's Davis losing. Again we've won three games with Hill at QB ,in those three wins we've allowed 7 points total in the 4 games he's played we have averaged yielding 8.5 points per game , we have failed to score more than that average ONE time all season .IOW if we'd averaged giving up 8.5 PPG all season it's very unlikely we'd have lost more than two or three games regardless if it was Hill or Davis .

It's hard to not get the inkling this is more about "I was right , you were wrong" than the fact that as a team we are playing much better.

 

[Merlin]

Because he's a backup for a reason. Plain and simple.

Hope we win out, but if we do it will be from great overall team effort and production. It won't be because Hill is elevating people's play.

Hill, if anything, demonstrates how effin important it is for the Rams to raise the bar at QB. With a QB we can count on this is a deep playoff team.