Shaun Hill

[lasvegasrams]

i didn't see him get "crushed" in that small sample size. he pulled a quad...happens to lots of players, i think.

True, it was a small sample size. But his mobility with the poor o line we have would be disastrous

 

[Zaphod]

austin davis has played better than i thought he would. but the bar isn't very high for that. i won't be angry or overly resentful if he starts all of the rest of the rams games; i agree that it would be good to get a solid idea of what he's capable of doing as a starter. but like you, i have trouble with the virtual throwing-in-of-the-towel thing as justification for playing him over hill at this still somewhat early stage of the season. and this sunday's game against the defending champs is simultaneously the kind of game that could energize and rally this team if we could win, while at the same time being the kind of game that begs for an experienced QB against their fierce defense.

i really wish fisher hadn't backed himself into a corner with the early proclamation that davis would hve the starter role for the rest of the 2014 season; he could have explained the situation to both of his qb's in the kind of term we've been talking about, while giving the team what i feel would be its best chance of making something out of the season. go with the veteran, especially during this gauntlet of very tough games we've just entered, and if after that it's apparent we've not even a mathematical chance at the playoffs, see what you have in the untested UDFA.

Everyone seemed to like it at the time, and I suppose the media was clamoring for it, but I agree that he backed himself into a corner.

Forget the media, I want this team to win as many games as they can. And you just can't take pressure off of Davis with any statement. He's playing for his career right now, whether that be as a potential future starter or as a backup, here or anywhere else.

No two ways, we all want to see another Kurt Warner story that sees this team propelled into relevance again, but there really is no sense in putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Thordaddy]

i didn't see him get "crushed" in that small sample size. he pulled a quad...happens to lots of players, i think.

Yes he pulled a 34 year old out of shape quad and IMO even if you put Hill in Davis will be back sooner rather than later.
Hill didn't prepare to be the starter in the off season and his physique reflects it,sure he knows the playbook and unfettered can execute it, but our "pocket" is "No Country for Old Men",SAM is hurt BECAUSE Long whiffed ,Hill wouldn't take ALL the hits Davis does, but Davis won't take ALL the hits Hill will either I'd say they'd pretty well turn out close to the same numbers wise, and Davis doesn't JUST turn rabbit,he keeps his eyes down field .

Right now Davis is streaky, a lot of QB's are, but he can get hot after a cold streak in game, that's a unique quality in one so young,just is.
I was totally on board with putting Hill back in until these last three games (IOW even after our one win) I am convinced Davis played well enough in ALL three games that we'd have won if the rest of the team played as well as they should have,focusing on him ,expecting him to make up for poor play by the rest of the team is like expecting him to be Manning or Rogers or Rivers, we haven't had a QB on this team with that sort of ability since KW and certainly not Shaun Hill.

I rate these two as near a dead heat in what they have to offer now AFTER Hill has all that experience over the kid.
I can't help but believe Davis will get better as the season goes on and our record will be about the same with either of them.
My preference is that we stay with Davis because he has so much more future ,Shotty can mold him to what he wants,instead of trying to break the bad habits of the years of not quite being good enough to start permanently that have doubtless kept Hill as a backup.
My dad coached a national championship rifle team when he was in the service,they won three years in a row, he always said he'd take someone who'd never fired a rifle and had no bad habits over a good shot with bad habits he had to break.
Davis is materially a rookie,I think he compares pretty damned well to the rest of the rookie QB's currently playing ,Sunday is another big test for the kid ,I think he passes it and if we lose he probably won't be why.

 

[CoachO]

Simple all the sacks Davis has gotten combined with all the ones he escaped. The oline hasn't been the best haven't even been good. Hill isn't a mobile quarterback. He van move around in the pocket but his escapability isn't anywhere near Davis.

Has it occurred to you that Davis is the reason for many of the sacks he has taken? It's a statistical fact that "scrambling" QBs are sacked more frequently than "pocket passers". For every play that Davis extends with his bailing on the pocket, he runs himself into pressure just as often. Rather than "feeling" pressure that isn't always there, he ends up stepping into it creating the very thing he is trying to avoid.

I wonder why so many seem to say that Hill isn't mobile. He is quite mobile, just not in a run around just for the sake of bailing out as many young QBs tend to do, including Davis. It seems that many people seem to think his age somehow makes him more fragile, and some sort of statue with a "hit me" sign on his chest. He was brought in here as an upgrade over Clemens, and the consensus going into the season was that he would be exactly that. Now he seems to be a washed up "never was" without ever getting a real chance to show what he is capable of with THIS team.

I get that there's no looking back now that Fisher has made the pronouncement. But, for me anyway, I just don't understand why it seems like Shawn Hill is a washed up has been when 2 months ago, he was considered a good choice by many to be the backup plan should Bradford go down.

 

[dieterbrock]

Vikings game, half 1

You mean the half of football where Hill was only sacked 1 time?

I like Davis, he's fun to watch. His mobility may have saved him from a sack or two that Hill may not have avoided, but on the flip side Davis relying on his scrambling has led to sacks too

 

[drasconis]

2 months ago he was the back-up plan if Bradford went down for a short bit. If we were talking filling for 2-4 games for a minor injury and keeping a team going he was a low risk solid choice. As the guy to replace Bradford for the entire year.....welll that is why many at the time (and more post injury) wondered why there wasn't someone taken in the draft to be brought in. The fact is if Hill was anything but a "never was" he wouldn't be signing 1 year backup contracts at this age. Saying I haven't seen what he can do with this team is silly, we can see what he did with other teams....there is plenty of book on him. What magical transformation do you think has taken place, I am just not clear how you think he is better than what he has shown in the past or how this team is going to make better than he was previously.
Obviously you think highly of the guy, higher than any other NFL team out there. That is fine, we all have guys like that, favorites that we feel if they only got a fair shot would prove us right (I know I do) - sometimes they are veterans, sometimes they are rookies. At this point though you are just repeating the same arguments over and over (though both sides are really).

 

[lasvegasrams]

You mean the half of football where Hill was only sacked 1 time?

I like Davis, he's fun to watch. His mobility may have saved him from a sack or two that Hill may not have avoided, but on the flip side Davis relying on his scrambling has led to sacks too

Yeah the one where he looked like a deer in headlights against the weakest team we've played so far.

I like Hill, but tie goes to the younger QB in my opinion for the remainder of the season.

 

[CoachO]

2 months ago he was the back-up plan if Bradford went down for a short bit. If we were talking filling for 2-4 games for a minor injury and keeping a team going he was a low risk solid choice. As the guy to replace Bradford for the entire year.....welll that is why many at the time (and more post injury) wondered why there wasn't someone taken in the draft to be brought in. The fact is if Hill was anything but a "never was" he wouldn't be signing 1 year backup contracts at this age. Saying I haven't seen what he can do with this team is silly, we can see what he did with other teams....there is plenty of book on him. What magical transformation do you think has taken place, I am just not clear how you think he is better than what he has shown in the past or how this team is going to make better than he was previously.
Obviously you think highly of the guy, higher than any other NFL team out there. That is fine, we all have guys like that, favorites that we feel if they only got a fair shot would prove us right (I know I do) - sometimes they are veterans, sometimes they are rookies. At this point though you are just repeating the same arguments over and over (though both sides are really).

Its not that I think "highly" of him as some sort of long term solution. But I do believe he is better than the current option for THIS YEAR. And I definitely have a higher opinion of him than apparently many seem to have, who now seem to view him as much worse than they did 2 months ago.

I totally understand the idea of giving the young guy a look to see what he "might" develop into. But to say he gives this team the best chance to win NOW, I just disagree with. I have never once said I think Shawn Hill is a ProBowl QB, but when you say I have a higher opinion of him than "any other NFL team out there", I think you may be exaggerating a tad to make your point. Obviously he has made enough of an impression to have been in the league for 13 years, so there obviously have been teams who feel as I do.

I realize NO ONE in the organization will ever admit this publicly, but I think that this decision was made partly because behind closed doors, the powers that be knew that this season was lost the minute Bradford went down. And Austin Davis has shown enough "excitement" in his game to at least be entertaining while losing these games. They have nothing to lose by giving the kid a look, and maybe just maybe, he develops into a decent backup for down the road.

But lets not pretend, that had Bradford not gone down, Austin Davis would not have made this team. Let alone be the starting QB.

 

[lasvegasrams]

^Yes, but when you win your first start, then have two consecutive 300+yard, 3TD games (something Bradford RARELY did), you can't just switch QBs back and forth. I think the locker room has Davis' back.

 

[RamFan503]

I realize NO ONE in the organization will ever admit this publicly, but I think that this decision was made partly because behind closed doors, the powers that be knew that this season was last the minute Bradford went down. And Austin Davis has shown enough "excitement" in his game to at least be entertaining while losing these games. They have nothing to lose by giving the kid a look, and maybe just maybe, he develops into a decent backup for down the road.

You could very well be right here. But then again, we will likely never know for sure.

But lets not pretend, that had Bradford not gone down, Austin Davis would not have made this team. Let alone be the starting QB.

This I'm not too sure about. I had heard a few times that they were likely going to keep three QBs until they at least saw how Sam's knee was fairing in the regular season.

 

[BriansRams]

I just think that in an effort to be able to avoid the "we'll never know if he could have done it" about Hill, we should just start him this week just in case he can greatly reduce sacks, ints, and QB fumbles. If after a couple games we clearly see he cannot, then AD gets the last 9 games to show us who he is. It's NOT a big deal. The flip side is we all have to say, "I wonder if Hill could have turned the season around?"

Once again, I have no ill will toward AD. I really like his fire and his attitude. But he's being careless with the ball. Pick 6's to end games are so demoralizing. It just makes no sense to demote the season's #2 experienced QB for an "exciting player" who makes terrible mistakes while were STILL mathematically able to make a the playoffs. Who cares if people say "oh my wow, the coach changed his mind again!" Who really cares. Just do what's best to get wins.

 

[drasconis]

I just think that in an effort to be able to avoid the "we'll never know if he could have done it" about Hill, we should just start him this week just in case he can greatly reduce sacks, ints, and QB fumbles. If after a couple games we clearly see he cannot, then AD gets the last 9 games to show us who he is. It's NOT a big deal. The flip side is we all have to say, "I wonder if Hill could have turned the season around?"

Once again, I have no ill will toward AD. I really like his fire and his attitude. But he's being careless with the ball. Pick 6's to end games are so demoralizing. It just makes no sense to demote the season's #2 experienced QB for an "exciting player" who makes terrible mistakes while were STILL mathematically able to make a the playoffs. Who cares if people say "oh my wow, the coach changed his mind again!" Who really cares. Just do what's best to get wins.

You know we can't do that. The coach would lose the locker room, and the team would lose the fans. You can't say you are not giving the kid a short hook and then give him a short hook. The flip flop simply wouldn't be acceptable. How do you justify pulling a guy who has 300 yrd games 2 out of his last 3 and 3td in 2 of his last 3 to either the team or the media. The fact is it would all turn on you....badly. CoachO even said it above - they have backed themselves into a corner on this. You can't pull Davis until he has several bad games. With our schedule those are likely to happen (though I bleive they will happen regardless of who is QB).

 

[CoachO]

You could very well be right here. But then again, we will likely never know for sure.

This I'm not too sure about. I had heard a few times that they were likely going to keep three QBs until they at least saw how Sam's knee was fairing in the regular season.

Heard from whom? Because I "heard" quite the opposite as it pertains to Davis. And I will stand by my sources. They've been pretty dead on accurate so far.

 

[dieterbrock]

Yeah the one where he looked like a deer in headlights against the weakest team we've played so far.

I like Hill, but tie goes to the younger QB in my opinion for the remainder of the season.

I like Davis and he gives us a reason to watch the team. I see no reason to replace him. That said, I believe Hill would have done well in this system as well and his mobility is much better than many are crediting here. Mainly there was some reference to game #1 as "proof" of Hill being more sack prone than Davis. Yet Hill was only sacked once, Davis was sacked 4 times.

 

[rhinobean]

^Yes, but when you win your first start, then have two consecutive 300+yard, 3TD games (something Bradford RARELY did), you can't just switch QBs back and forth. I think the locker room has Davis' back.

I believe Sam would have this team at 4-1 and have 4 300 yard games! We'll never know but bringing him in to the picture was unnessasssary!

 

[RamFan503]

Heard from whom? Because I "heard" quite the opposite as it pertains to Davis. And I will stand by my sources. They've been pretty dead on accurate so far.

Just in the press at the time. I can't tell you they were insiders or not.

What I do know is that there have been plenty of players either cut or about to be cut that changed their situation once they got a chance to actually play. So the idea that Davis would have been cut if true, doesn't mean that he isn't better than Hill NOW. I liked the Hill signing. But that doesn't mean I also think he should start over Davis. I honestly don't know what Hill could give us. I am guessing though that if he really offered an upside, he'd be playing. I don't think for a second that they are playing Davis just to see what he's got. There is something more that they have seen out of the two.

 

[bwdenverram]

I think Davis has done far better than anyone has expected. I certainly didn't think he was very good at any point previously but he has shown me a lot of heart.
Now, he certainly has made plays that I don't think Hill or Bradford for that matter would of made because of his feet.
But he has also made some really bad decisions, poor throws and missed a ton of opportunities that could of changed the outcome of games.

Hill looked pretty good before he got injured. Nobody on this board knows if Hill would or wouldn't of done better. We can all speculate all we want. There is NO way to know for sure. But given we're 1-4 I really don't see why giving Hill another shot is a bad thing. Until the defense stops giving up 30 points a game what does it really matter?

IMO barring one hell of a comeback from Bradford our future QB isn't even on the roster at this time.

 

[CoachO]

Just in the press at the time. I can't tell you they were insiders or not.

What I do know is that there have been plenty of players either cut or about to be cut that changed their situation once they got a chance to actually play. So the idea that Davis would have been cut if true, doesn't mean that he isn't better than Hill NOW. I liked the Hill signing. But that doesn't mean I also think he should start over Davis. I honestly don't know what Hill could give us. I am guessing though that if he really offered an upside, he'd be playing. I don't think for a second that they are playing Davis just to see what he's got. There is something more that they have seen out of the two.

I can't say for sure why they are playing him, none of us can. I have admitted he has played better at times than I thought he would. But, for me, and this is all I am saying, Hill would give us a better chance to win these games NOW. But it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else thinks, Fisher has made his choice, for whatever reasons, and we all have to live with it.

That being said, whether it's Davis, Hill, or Bradford, if they think they have ANY chance of winning games throwing the ball 40+ times against the SF's, Seattle's , Arizona's Denver's and Kansas City's of the world, then I would seriously have to question their coaching ability. Davis threw 29 passes against Tampa Bay, and they won the game. He has thrown 156 passes in the other 3 1/2 games (44.6 per game) in the 4 losses. Pretty much seals the deal for me.

 

[RamFan503]

I can't say for sure why they are playing him, none of us can. I have admitted he has played better at times than I thought he would. But, for me, and this is all I am saying, Hill would give us a better chance to win these games NOW. But it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else thinks, Fisher has made his choice, for whatever reasons, and we all have to live with it.

That being said, whether it's Davis, Hill, or Bradford, if they think they have ANY chance of winning games throwing the ball 40+ times against the SF's, Seattle's , Arizona's Denver's and Kansas City's of the world, then I would seriously have to question their coaching ability. Davis threw 29 passes against Tampa Bay, and they won the game. He has thrown 156 passes in the other 3 1/2 games (44.6 per game) in the 4 losses. Pretty much seals the deal for me.

Yeah - I get that. We were supposed to be a smash mouth offense (allegedly). I'm just not sure we can look at this team and in particular, the O-line and say that smash mouth would work. Not that you can do the same and say that a passing game will work. It seems we have some pretty big weapons at receiver/TE and a lack of ability to continuously open holes for the running game. It's tough. I would love to see them run more but not if it means a constant diet of 3rd and long. I keep hoping they can figure things out. And if Hill is part of that figuring things out, I'm all for it. I just don't know that I lean that way.

 

[Rmfnlt]

You know we can't do that. The coach would lose the locker room, and the team would lose the fans. You can't say you are not giving the kid a short hook and then give him a short hook. The flip flop simply wouldn't be acceptable. How do you justify pulling a guy who has 300 yrd games 2 out of his last 3 and 3td in 2 of his last 3 to either the team or the media. The fact is it would all turn on you....badly. CoachO even said it above - they have backed themselves into a corner on this. You can't pull Davis until he has several bad games. With our schedule those are likely to happen (though I bleive they will happen regardless of who is QB).

Agree.

Boy, took 10 minutes to wade through all of that (OK, I'm a slow reader ).

The point made above trumps all else, no matter how passionate you feel about starting Hill.

Jeff Fisher made a stand. He said Davis was the starter for the remainder of the season.

Can he reneg on that? Of course.

But I have to think he'll only do so with a ton of evidence that Davis could never be a starting QB option any more.

We're locked in here fans.... best to just root Davis on.