Hill isn't a drop off versus Bradford IMO

[Zaphod]

If he is ranked 19th-14th, he is average. I liked his upside, but he is not a game breaking QB and he was not going to be expected to be. I have said before Sam is probably worth 3-5 more TDS this season than Shaun Hill, but only because both guys wouldn't have been expected to throw more than 20 passes a game. Hill might be a little over valued in this scenario, but Sam is definitely average. But, again, that is okay, because average QBs win all of the time. It takes 21 other guys to win a super bowl.

I've always agreed that this is much more of a team game, contrary to what the quarterback obsessed media attempts to fool us into believing. It's great to hear from like minds in this thread!

I also feel that every quarterback's success is affected greatly by the talent around them in what is the ultimate team game, and I believe that every team should question whether those extra 5 touchdowns afforded by the "most important player on the team" are really worth the additional cap room that could have been afforded to a better overall team.

I've questioned the quarterback obsession since I began watching this game having grown up on basically high school football and Marty Schottenheimer ball.

Having said that, I won't be bamboozled into believing that there is no drop off from Sam to Shaun. To the effect that he has been utilized, to include the supporting cast, that may be capable of producing similar stats as you mentioned above. But to me, and this is all just opinion, I just believe that Sam finally had the talent around him to succeed. I accept our system for what it is, but I was finally excited to see what he could do within the improvements they provided.

All that said, I'm ready to move on, ready to spend a valuable pick on a quarterback, and ready for the cap savings that come with that. And I hope beyond hope that what people say is true, that within this system, Shaun Hill really can provide as much value as Bradford. I am, after all a Rams fan first and foremost.

 

[LesBaker]

While I think there is a drop off, the one advantage Hill seems to have is better awareness of the field, the game seems a little slower for him than for Bradford. This is no doubt partly due to experience but I have to say that watching Bradford stare down receivers and not have the ability to deek the defense the way Luck could in his rookie year, I have to think it's also native talent. If Hill has the savvy that he seems to have demonstrated so far in the preseason he may be a prototypical QB for the West Coast offense that Schotty is running and may partly make up with his head what he lacks in his arm.

Another advantage is his accuracy, and I think people will see that unless Hill has been away from the game so long that it has "sped up" on him. That's really my only fear.

 

[LesBaker]

All that said, I'm ready to move on, ready to spend a valuable pick on a quarterback, and ready for the cap savings that come with that. And I hope beyond hope that what people say is true, that within this system, Shaun Hill really can provide as much value as Bradford. I am, after all a Rams fan first and foremost.

I'm standing right next to you my friend.

 

[Oldgeek]

Sam has a more accurate and stronger arm. Hill is more of a gambler and will toss it into coverage (good & bad). He seems to have a little better pocket awareness (feels the heat earlier) and isn't afraid to run (good & bad). I'd rather have Sam but Hill ain't all that bad.

 

[tonyl711]

although I think Hill will get the job done, there is a big difference in abilities IMO, Hill has been in the league 12 years, Sam 4 and yet Sam has started more games than Hill? 12 years and he could never do enough to convince any coach he has played for that he is anything more than a back up? Sam has been ORY, and was having a carreer year when he went down last year, was having a very good pre season this year. as far as accuracy, Britt went on record just last week saying Sam was the most accurate QB he has ever played with. call him injury prone and you are right, but don't try to take away what he could do when healthy.

 

[bwdenverram]

Bradford has a strong arm, no two ways about that. But he also has flaws in his passing game too.

Agreed. Not saying he is perfect. I would personally rather have Sam. Whatever his flaws, his ceiling is much higher than Shaun's.

 

[RaminExile]

Another advantage is his accuracy, and I think people will see that unless Hill has been away from the game so long that it has "sped up" on him. That's really my only fear.

I don't think Hill's accuracy is much better - if at all than Sam's. I think the advantage he does offer is his vet savviness - and I like the touch he throws the ball with. He's pretty good at getting it up over linebackers etc. He'll do a good job for us and I'm happy to have him as our starter....but lets be real....there is a drop off from Sam Bradford.

 

[stlramscar]

Hill can read a defense better than Sam, bradford still had trouble at timea reading coverages.

 

[-X-]

All the things that have been put in place for Bradford are going to benefit Hill.

That's really the only thing I agree with. I have no problem with Hill whatsoever, btw, but he's not the same kind of talent. Even if we picked up both from other teams this offseason (e.g., never had any exposure to Bradford here), Bradford would start ahead of Hill 10 times out of 10. The statistical body of work both have had over the years is what's clouding everybody's judgement about both. Just stop looking at that and watch them play. That's all it takes to determine who's better.

 

[junkman]

I know this isn't going to be very popular with a lot of people but in my opinion Hill isn't really "worse" than Bradford.

Sorry dude, I feel ya. But it sounds like sour grapes to me.

I mean, Hill is our guy for 2014, nothing we can do about that. So we will rally around Hill...

But even if Bradford = Hill AND even if Hill does do well in 2014, 34 year old Hill still doesn't have the 9 year horizon that 26 year old Bradford still has (or would have had). That's the most depressing part imho. It is as destabilizing to my feelings about the Rams as the shaky stadium lease issue.

 

[LesBaker]

Sam has a more accurate and stronger arm. Hill is more of a gambler and will toss it into coverage (good & bad). He seems to have a little better pocket awareness (feels the heat earlier) and isn't afraid to run (good & bad). I'd rather have Sam but Hill ain't all that bad.

The facts don't back that up. The stronger arm is for sure true, Hill doesn't have a Garcia shoestring arm but he is not as strong armed as Bradford.

After that, well, they are eerily similar as far as production percentages, measurable numbers.

Bradfords INT % is 2.2 while Hills is 2.4 so he doesn't seem to take any more chances, typically the backup isn't doing that anyway.

As far as accuracy Hill's career completion % is 61.9%, Bradfords is 58.6.

I'm not happy that Bradford went down, and I think he had a good chance of having a better year than he has had before, but to date he hasn't been all that much better than Hill has when it comes to production. They have pretty similar career averages in TD %, INT %, YPA and a lot of other categories.

So what I'm saying is that if you thought this team could win with Bradford as we have seen him then you should also think we can win with Hill.

 

[RaminExile]

Sorry dude, I feel ya. But it sounds like sour grapes to me.

I mean, Hill is our guy for 2014, nothing we can do about that. So we will rally around Hill...

But even if Bradford = Hill AND even if Hill does do well in 2014, 34 year old Hill still doesn't have the 9 year horizon that 26 year old Bradford still has (or would have had). That's the most depressing part imho. It is as destabilizing to my feelings about the Rams as the shaky stadium lease issue.

This is why I said straight away it could potentially set our franchise back another 5 years while we wait to see who we've got as our starting QB. That's why I hope - the best thing for the Rams would be that Sam Bradford comes back - on a team friendly deal - with a real good rookie backing him up in hen e he goes down again. Then we've got stability - and also a plan for the future. The problem is - people act like Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck are ten a penny. They're not. Its hard to find a good QB in this league - so when you've got one -even one who's injury prone - you keep him.

 

[RaminExile]

So what I'm saying is that if you thought this team could win with Bradford as we have seen him then you should also think we can win with Hill.

I think most people are saying that Sam Bradford this year - was not likely going to be the 2011 version of Sam Bradford. His play has improved dramatically - as we've put pieces around him. Thus his career stats can be a bit misleading.

 

[LesBaker]

That's really the only thing I agree with. I have no problem with Hill whatsoever, btw, but he's not the same kind of talent. Even if we picked up both from other teams this offseason (e.g., never had any exposure to Bradford here), Bradford would start ahead of Hill 10 times out of 10. The statistical body of work both have had over the years is what's clouding everybody's judgement about both. Just stop looking at that and watch them play. That's all it takes to determine who's better.

Bradford has more talent/upside, sure, and a stronger arm. But this isn't about those two things. It's about production and Hill brings about the same as Bradford has in the past. In some ways one guy is a little better than the other and vice versa. But it isn't like the Rams are losing a huge amount of production here. It isn't like Hill is stepping in for Warner.

 

[nanotech]

He doesn't have the same arm, I agree with that. I wasn't saying Hill was superior in every way but just so you know Hill has been far more accurate than Bradford over his career.

Completion % is not necessarily a reflection of accuracy. Rams receivers had serious drop rates over the past few years.

 

[LesBaker]

This is why I said straight away it could potentially set our franchise back another 5 years while we wait to see who we've got as our starting QB. That's why I hope - the best thing for the Rams would be that Sam Bradford comes back - on a team friendly deal - with a real good rookie backing him up in hen e he goes down again. Then we've got stability - and also a plan for the future. The problem is - people act like Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck are ten a penny. They're not. Its hard to find a good QB in this league - so when you've got one -even one who's injury prone - you keep him.

I think it slows the momentum for sure but I dunno about 5 years. It'll be a long time until they decide what to do with Bradford, they don't have to make any moves for a long time so they can sit on him while he rehabs and monitor that. Based on what Docs tell them they will make what they deem is the smart play. IMO that will most certainly be a restructuring of his contract if they decide to keep him.

Anyway I know there is a lot of doom and gloom because of this but I think it really only sets the Rams back this year, and maybe next. Possibly a third if they cannot find a suitable guy in the upcoming draft.

 

[LesBaker]

One thing I will add is this.......if Bradford and Hill manage almost the same production (potential aside it means ZERO) and we all were assuming that both Bradford and the offensive would be better this year and more productive why in the world wouldn't we assume that about the same thing will happen with Hill under center?

We are talking about two guys who have been average, but would be playing with a lot more firepower than they ever had.

 

[bwdenverram]

One thing I will add is this.......if Bradford and Hill manage almost the same production (potential aside it means ZERO) and we all were assuming that both Bradford and the offensive would be better this year and more productive why in the world wouldn't we assume that about the same thing will happen with Hill under center?

We are talking about two guys who have been average, but would be playing with a lot more firepower than they ever had.

I think most are basing this off of Bradford's start last year. Hill hasn't (I don't think anyway) had a 14-4 (TD/INT) start or probably in an entire season. We can all guesstimate what that year would of looked like if Sam didn't get hurt. Probably in the 30-10 range. That's pretty darn good. Most "thought" he would have an even better 2015 with the improved WR and OL play.

But sigh, it doesn't matter now. I think Shaun will put up career numbers this year. If the OL stays pretty healthy he has the best weapons around him he's probably ever had as well.

We all need to get on the Shaun Hill train cuz it's all WE have.

 

[junkman]

I think it slows the momentum for sure but I dunno about 5 years. It'll be a long time until they decide what to do with Bradford, they don't have to make any moves for a long time so they can sit on him while he rehabs and monitor that. Based on what Docs tell them they will make what they deem is the smart play. IMO that will most certainly be a restructuring of his contract if they decide to keep him.

Anyway I know there is a lot of doom and gloom because of this but I think it really only sets the Rams back this year, and maybe next. Possibly a third if they cannot find a suitable guy in the upcoming draft.

Yeah, 5 years feels a bit long, but not by much.

2014, we'll be competitive for sure with Hill at QB while at the same time being equally uncertain about who our signal caller will be in 2015 and beyond.

By the end of 2015 pre-season, we should be pretty clear about who our future face of the franchise is (or at least who will be competing with Bradford for the spot). Then it's just a question of how long it takes before they can capably lead this team. 2 years? 3 years?

Rams have a window that is just opening this year where they will be uber-competitive, and it closes when we have to re-sign all of our RGIII bounty picks to their 2nd contracts (next 3-5 years). I'm betting QB becomes a pretty open competition between a free agent veteran who really needs a chance and a relatively polished rookie, where the emphasis will be on readiness rather than finding raw but high-upside project guys with the physical tools.

http://nfltraderumors.co/2015-nfl-free-agents-list/

 

[LesBaker]

I think most are basing this off of Bradford's start last year. Hill hasn't (I don't think anyway) had a 14-4 (TD/INT) start or probably in an entire season. We can all guesstimate what that year would of looked like if Sam didn't get hurt. Probably in the 30-10 range. That's pretty darn good. Most "thought" he would have an even better 2015 with the improved WR and OL play.

But sigh, it doesn't matter now. I think Shaun will put up career numbers this year. If the OL stays pretty healthy he has the best weapons around him he's probably ever had as well.

We all need to get on the Shaun Hill train cuz it's all WE have.

I didn't want to make a lot out of what Bradford did last year because he was still up and down a little bit. The last few games for sure he put up great numbers and was looking better than ever, but I didn't want to just assume that was going to continue because I can't tell the future and frankly he had two really huge games against two of the worst teams in the NFL. It's too difficult to tell how things would have played out.

I agree that Hill will put up the type of production he never has before, just like I think Bradford would have as well.