for 2014 - Why not Hill?

[Ballhawk]

Tony Banks could win with this defense .

Now you've gone too far! History has proven this to be so wrong. :eek:
Tony banks was the worst QB to ever play in the NFL.

 

[Merlin]

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.

Davis is a guy I look at a little differently from Hill. He still may be able to be more than a backup in this league, jury's out on him for now I think. His play disintegrated game by game but it was really his first shot being thrown into the limelight, so here's hoping he pushes again next year in camp.

He's got something Hill doesn't have: youth. So I still do maintain some hope that maybe he'll at least make himself a tough cut next year by killing it in camp and preseason. IMO moving forward he has potentially more value than Hill does to this team as a backup, because the Rams won't have to sign him in FA.

 

[Thordaddy]

Now you've gone too far! History has proven this to be so wrong. :eek:
Tony banks was the worst QB to ever play in the NFL.

I've gone to far?
Worse than Ryan Leif ? Steve Pisarcawicz? Banks had a game for the Ravens where he threw like 5 touchdowns .

 

[jrry32]

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.

Excuses. He turned it over 3 times. One resulted in a TD. One was an inexcusable INT inside the 10 when we could have tied or won the game in the last 30 seconds to a minute.

He did not play well enough to win. You can't just blame Schotty here. I didn't like the play-call but Hill blew it. He made the wrong read. He did the same thing on his first INT leading to 3 points for SD. Yes, the Rams could have won that game if things went differently. But Hill did not play "well enough to win". That indicates to me that the QB played well and the team lost. Hill was a contributing factor in that loss due to his poor play.

Lets not try to justify it.

And the offense did not put up 24. They put up 17. Janoris returned an interception for a TD. And the offense cost us 7 with the defensive TD.

Hill played a bad game. I'm not ripping the guy for it. You brought it up. I'm just telling you that is not a performance I'd use in his favor. He did not play well enough to win.

 

[Thordaddy]

Davis is a guy I look at a little differently from Hill. He still may be able to be more than a backup in this league, jury's out on him for now I think. His play disintegrated game by game but it was really his first shot being thrown into the limelight, so here's hoping he pushes again next year in camp.

He's got something Hill doesn't have: youth. So I still do maintain some hope that maybe he'll at least make himself a tough cut next year by killing it in camp and preseason. IMO moving forward he has potentially more value than Hill does to this team as a backup, because the Rams won't have to sign him in FA.

I agree , and a great part of his decline was owing to the lack of defensive support during Hills starts since coming back our opponents have averaged scoring 8.5 points a game, in the games Davis started our opponents averaged almost 26 points per game we have scored more that that average ONCE since Hill has come back,but Hill gets the credit?

 

[jrry32]

He still may be able to be more than a backup in this league, jury's out on him for now I think. His play disintegrated game by game but it was really his first shot being thrown into the limelight, so here's hoping he pushes again next year in camp.

He's got something Hill doesn't have: youth. So I still do maintain some hope that maybe he'll at least make himself a tough cut next year by killing it in camp and preseason. IMO moving forward he has potentially more value than Hill does to this team as a backup, because the Rams won't have to sign him in FA.

The jury isn't out on Davis. He's not a starter in this league. I'm sorry but unless he has an epiphany, the guy just isn't good enough.

Also, Davis is a RFA so he'll likely make about as much as Hill is making this year.

 

[jrry32]

I agree , and a great part of his decline was owing to the lack of defensive support during Hills starts since coming back our opponents have averaged scoring 8.5 points a game, in the games Davis started our opponents averaged almost 26 points per game we have scored more that that average ONCE since Hill has come back,but Hill gets the credit?

Come on Thor, that's BS just like the claim that Hill played well enough to win against SD.

Davis played his best football against Dallas and Philly. Two of our worst defensive showing. He played his worst football against SF(Part 2) and Arizona. Two good defensive showings. Davis got figured out and couldn't adjust to what defenses were throwing at him.

The guy had numerous chances against SF and Arizona that he squandered. His WRs were not blanketed. He just didn't make the reads and the throws.

Lets not deflect blame away from the QB. Davis's issues are on him. And he hasn't shown me anything indicating he can overcome them.

 

[RamzFanz]

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.

The claims are hardly outlandish. We've won 3 with Hill scoring 122 points.

I certainly didn't blame Davis for those losses. Those were both games early in the season when the D was sucking. I'm pretty sure I recall that almost everyone was on the AD bandwagon at that time. Remember my "Start Hill" poll? 111 for Davis and 19 for Hill.

This isn't about I was right and you were wrong, it's about saying Hill cost us the the Chargers game which is just not a reasonable assertion.

 

[Merlin]

The jury isn't out on Davis. He's not a starter in this league. I'm sorry but unless he has an epiphany, the guy just isn't good enough.

Also, Davis is a RFA so he'll likely make about as much as Hill is making this year.

The primary difference between Davis and Hill, both of whom are low-talent QBs, is that Hill is experienced, has seen more and thus is less likely to make game changing mistakes. Davis is probably gonna wind up a backup just like Hill, yes. But there is still a chance, and I give him that based on how much better his play was this year from last. If he works hard enough and gets another shot he may make it, as there are plenty of JAGs who accrue starting time in the NFL. Unlikely but still possible.

Hill is going to make significantly more than Davis because he's gonna need to be signed by a very good backup rate at the least. His pay may be above that, particularly if he wins out running this offense with a low error rate.

But no matter how you slice it Hill's age matters. I love the guy and appreciate what he's doing, however he's old with a weak arm. Rams need to reload the position with better talent and upside. IMO.

 

[RamzFanz]

Excuses. He turned it over 3 times. One resulted in a TD. One was an inexcusable INT inside the 10 when we could have tied or won the game in the last 30 seconds to a minute.

He did not play well enough to win. You can't just blame Schotty here. I didn't like the play-call but Hill blew it. He made the wrong read. He did the same thing on his first INT leading to 3 points for SD. Yes, the Rams could have won that game if things went differently. But Hill did not play "well enough to win". That indicates to me that the QB played well and the team lost. Hill was a contributing factor in that loss due to his poor play.

Lets not try to justify it.

And the offense did not put up 24. They put up 17. Janoris returned an interception for a TD. And the offense cost us 7 with the defensive TD.

Hill played a bad game. I'm not ripping the guy for it. You brought it up. I'm just telling you that is not a performance I'd use in his favor. He did not play well enough to win.

You have a great memory of mistakes he makes and a short memory of the many good plays he made that were called back. I acknowledge his mistakes. HE played well enough to win by a big margin even with his mistakes. He didn't miss the defender on the blocked FG, he didn't get the 2 TD's called back, he didn't cause any of the many penalties that negated his good passes, he didn't even miss the pass rusher on his blind side from behind that strip sacked him.

If you think you're going to find a QB that can avoid a free running blind side strip sack from the back, good luck with that.

Hill is a backup. I would never want to start a season thinking he has to play the whole season. But to say he played a bad game is just silly. He played well enough to win with even a single penalty not happening.

 

[RamzFanz]

The primary difference between Davis and Hill, both of whom are low-talent QBs, is that Hill is experienced, has seen more and thus is less likely to make game changing mistakes. Davis is probably gonna wind up a backup just like Hill, yes. But there is still a chance, and I give him that based on how much better his play was this year from last. If he works hard enough and gets another shot he may make it, as there are plenty of JAGs who accrue starting time in the NFL. Unlikely but still possible.

Hill is going to make significantly more than Davis because he's gonna need to be signed by a very good backup rate at the least. His pay may be above that, particularly if he wins out running this offense with a low error rate.

But no matter how you slice it Hill's age matters. I love the guy and appreciate what he's doing, however he's old with a weak arm. Rams need to reload the position with better talent and upside. IMO.

Hill's age isn't really a factor for a one or two year backup spot IMHO. He doesn't have the wear and tear on him most QBs his age do.

I more want him around to help mentor the Rams future QB. One of the things the Rams don't have a lot of is experience.

 

[RamzFanz]

I agree , and a great part of his decline was owing to the lack of defensive support during Hills starts since coming back our opponents have averaged scoring 8.5 points a game, in the games Davis started our opponents averaged almost 26 points per game we have scored more that that average ONCE since Hill has come back,but Hill gets the credit?

I find your argument just odd. If the defense allowed 21 points per game, we win every game with Hill. What in the world does the defense have to do with it?!

 

[SteveBrown]

This discussion is targeted toward remainder of 2014 season and how far St. Louis can go this season.

We used to just have decent special teams. We now have a top 5 Defense and Special Teams that are quite good.

I propose that the only thing holding St. Louis from transitioning from "able to beat everyone" to "should beat everyone" is the quarterback position.

Yes, we are a little weak on the right side of the line. Yes, we are missing a receiver. But really, the overall talent level of the offense is on par with the best of the league.

...except for Quarterback.

What about Hill will prevent St. Louis from winning out this season and possibly making the playoffs?

I don't think his body,or arm will last. Plus a lot of throws he is making to Britt would be td's with Bradford....He could win us 9 games, but not 11-12 for the playoff seed.

 

[Thordaddy]

The claims are hardly outlandish. We've won 3 with Hill scoring 122 points.

I certainly didn't blame Davis for those losses. Those were both games early in the season when the D was sucking. I'm pretty sure I recall that almost everyone was on the AD bandwagon at that time. Remember my "Start Hill" poll? 111 for Davis and 19 for Hill.

View attachment 4441

This isn't about I was right and you were wrong, it's about saying Hill cost us the the Chargers game which is just not a reasonable assertion.

Sure I remember the poll, I remember a lot and am certain that the games we've won with Hill our defense was the story , holding Manning and the Broncos to 7 and shutting the other two opponents out,when we didn't play great defense with Hill we lost those numbers matter as much as the numbers you are quoting.
These wins and losses are team wins and losses, and the team as a whole has played better, how anyone can't accept that Davis needed to perform better than Hill has had to to win and was put under far greater pressure than Hill has been thereby is beyond me ,you get a lot more chances to score and can't be made one dimensional when your defense is playing like they did in Hills three wins.
I do and will continue to contend Davis OR Hill ,given the type of special teams play,and defensive play we've had our record would be pretty well the same. Both have had moments ,but ONE has had the benefit of the BEST three games our defense has played .
When your defense plays that well the pressure on your offense is minimized which is BTW what this coach wants to be our style,it's his philosophy

Words like reasonable, silly, BS, odd are creeping into this debate taking it back to that is detracting from the ability to enjoy the win and to keep the conversation civil,let's not go back there

 

[Rams and Gators]

In his 8 starts Davis faced 5 top 6 scoring Ds, Hill has faced two top 20 (one of which was 20th) and zero top 10 Ds, turning the ball over 3 times against the best D he's faced, if the O continues to play as well with Hill against the Seahawks and Cardinals as it has against a couple of really awful Ds then I'll be happy with him as the back up next year.

 

[dieterbrock]

So let me get this straight, defenders of Bradford like to point to his gaudy stats compiled in the Jacksonville and Houston games last year where the defense played great and the Rams destroyed lesser teams but this year in Hill's starts against lesser opponents he gets no credit?
#doublestandard

 

[Memphis Ram]

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.

Major difference. And again, this assumes that they win out and finish 9-7, but the 2013 team didn't have a winning record and they closed out the season with double digit losses in 3 of their last 5 games. Plus the 2013 team didn't have as many losses where many believe they very well could have won like the 2014 team.

Finally, I'm a huge Sam Bradford fan. I'll acknowledge that he seems to have better arm talent and accuracy than both Hill and Davis. However, both Hill and Davis are better playmakers / improvisers when things don't the way they are planned which happens quite a bit in this league. On top of that, no one is going to be able to convince me that Bradford comes back after missing 25 regular season games in 2015 playing balls out (not mentally favoring that knee).

 

[Zaphod]

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.

I just don't agree with the bold part. Absolutely, our defense dominated this game and they are the strength of this team.

But the team won. Take away those points that we put up on them, let their offense remain patient and it's a different game entirely. Heck, I think even the two-point conversion that we got following their own failed attempt at a punt fake was a tremendous affect on the momentum of the game as a whole.

Others may not agree, but I bet Williams will thank Shottenheimer at the end of the game for helping to achieve two shut-outs in a row.

Could our offense be better? Absolutely, but I do think the offensive line needs to continue to be developed before we can see what major affect any quarterback or coordinator has on the team.

 

[SaneRamsFan]

Who is a better backup, Hill or Davis? That's a reasonable argument you could spend the morning on. Who should be our starter for 2015 if we want to expect to be taken seriously as more than a first round playoff contender? Better start a different argument with different contestants. Right now it looks like SB and draft choice XXX. At least that's what Fisher and Snead would lead you to believe. But these guys can be a little misleading as to what they will really do.

 

[Boffo97]

The claims are hardly outlandish. We've won 3 with Hill scoring 122 points.

I certainly didn't blame Davis for those losses. Those were both games early in the season when the D was sucking. I'm pretty sure I recall that almost everyone was on the AD bandwagon at that time. Remember my "Start Hill" poll? 111 for Davis and 19 for Hill.

View attachment 4441

This isn't about I was right and you were wrong, it's about saying Hill cost us the the Chargers game which is just not a reasonable assertion.

1. I think what was being said about Hill and San Diego is that some of us blame Hill's execution on the last play rather than Schotty's play call. As to blame for the entire game, I've always been a fan of the idea that the entire team gets blame or the entire team gets credit.

2. You have been posting quite a bit, some a little tongue in cheek, some not so much, trying to get people to say you were right. The truth is the whole team is playing better. Hill is better than panicky Davis, but early season Davis is better than Hill. And Bradford is incredibly better than both.