Where Austin Davis, Shaun Hill fit for Rams/Wagoner

  • 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.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Where Austin Davis, Shaun Hill fit for Rams
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16082/where-austin-davis-shaun-hill-fit-for-rams

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Austin Davis and Shaun Hill split starting duties for the St. Louis Rams right down the middle in 2014. Each player started eight games and posted a 3-5 record as the starter.

Both Davis and Hill had a few moments where they looked like they could be solid starters and many more where they didn't. So, basically, they looked like backup quarterbacks forced into full-time starting jobs. As the season wore on, both players' weaknesses were exposed, which is pretty much exactly what you'd expect from backups turned starters.

"I think they showed this year, those guys can be No. 2s in the NFL," general manager Les Snead said. "I always look at a true No. 2 that, you know what, if you're rolling and you're in the window and you have an injury and if you play two to four games, that guy can keep you above water. I think those guys proved it."

Which is fine but for the fact that the Rams need more help at the quarterback position than a couple of backups. That leaves them heading into this offseason in search of a quarterback who can legitimately push Sam Bradford for the starting job. It also means the Rams have to determine the value of Hill and Davis heading into free agency.

After signing a one-year contract with the Rams last offseason, Hill is set to become an unrestricted free agent when the new league year opens March 10. Hill finished the season 145-of-229 for 1,657 yards with eight touchdowns and seven interceptions. He helped spark an upset of Denver but followed by struggling against San Diego in a heartbreaking loss the following week.

Hill turned 35 in January, but has said he wants to keep playing and wouldn't mind doing it in St. Louis.

Davis is set to become a restricted free agent, meaning if the Rams want to bring him back, they can control the process by tendering him an offer. Davis finished with slightly better numbers than Hill, going 180-of-284 for 2,001 yards with 12 touchdowns and nine interceptions. But Davis' knack for costly interceptions-turned-touchdowns landed him back on the bench after a fourth-quarter lead gone by the wayside in Arizona.

Rams coach Jeff Fisher has indicated he would like to retain both quarterbacks, though more as an all-encompassing sentiment than a specific need.

"We have a number of unrestricted free agents that, as a general statement, we’d like to have all back," Fisher said. "We’re going to see if we can get that done.”

The question becomes how the Rams can make that work if they are being sincere about their interest in bringing in a legitimate competitor for Bradford as the starter. It's extremely unlikely the Rams would carry four quarterbacks through the season, meaning they would theoretically have Bradford, a new quarterback from outside the building, and then have to make a choice (either in free agency or after the preseason) between Hill, Davis, and potentially another player from outside the building.

While Hill brings the experience, Davis brings the upside.

"Austin, give credit for being third-stringer, winning at Tampa," Snead said. "I think we were all big fans of that human being, to make plays in the moment. He's a little different than Shaun in that he could ascend."

If the Rams somehow end up in a situation where they have to rely on Hill or Davis as the starter for most of 2015, well, we already know how that movie ends. But there is nothing wrong with having either as a backup. However, they will probably have to make a decision on which one they want for that role rather than having both on the roster again.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
If I had to keep one, it'd be Davis for obvious reasons.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
IMO:

Most likely scenario where Davis returns: If we keep 3, Davis will be #3. Keeping a guy as old as Hill (and making as much as him) at #3 is counterproductive.

Most likely scenario where Hill returns: We have as much luck in our QB search as we seemed to have in our OC search and we stand pat with what we have at QB, Hill stays at #2.

Both scenarios happening is possible.

But I don't see either staying honestly. IMO, Rams keep 2, and it will be Bradford and whoever plan 1A is, and a developmental guy possibly on the PS (Hill and Davis are both ineligible for PS).
 

HE WITH HORNS

Hall of Fame
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
3,996
Davis can still get better, Hill is what he is. I'd keep Davis this year, AND he will be cheaper.

I want Bradford, Davis, and an early draft pick this year at QB.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Davis can still get better, Hill is what he is. I'd keep Davis this year, AND he will be cheaper.

I want Bradford, Davis, and an early draft pick this year at QB.

Always thought Davis should have not been benched because the season was lost , he;d had two high quality wins and he showed the resiliency to recover in game. IOW an upside that anyone claimed they knew wasn't there was projecting opinion as if it was fact
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
11,350
Name
Scott
Well, we do need a #2 qb. We certainly don't need 3 though. ;)
 

OJM

UDFA
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
42
If they're going with Bradford again, I'd be more than willing to let both Hill and Davis go. Let's draft a rookie and sign some FA quarterback, so it would really be a competition. I don't see how it makes much sense keeping one of them if the goal was to create a starting quarterback competition. If you keep one of them, you're already admitting that you have your backup, either you're drafting a quarterback, who won't have a real chance at the job, or you're not drafting anyone, and you're bringing in a veteran. Would that guy really have a shot to win the job? I liked a fee things that I saw from Davis, but I thought this was supposed to be a starting quarterback competition.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
I have to disagree on the thought that Davis can get better. I really do not believe Austin Davis showed anything to believe that he will ever have greater success than the 12:9 TD to INT ratio he had. I think he incredibly over performed for what his talent level is. I think the success he had was 100% an aberration and any chance he gets in the NFL in the future is going to trend toward his bad performances this season rather than the surprises he had.

Sorry to be so negative...but if we are looking for a long term back up (because I think we are all on the same page in that neither guy is a viable "competition for starting"), neither Davis nor Hill are that guy IMO.
 

paceram

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
1,732
If they're going with Bradford again, I'd be more than willing to let both Hill and Davis go. Let's draft a rookie and sign some FA quarterback, so it would really be a competition. I don't see how it makes much sense keeping one of them if the goal was to create a starting quarterback competition. If you keep one of them, you're already admitting that you have your backup, either you're drafting a quarterback, who won't have a real chance at the job, or you're not drafting anyone, and you're bringing in a veteran. Would that guy really have a shot to win the job? I liked a fee things that I saw from Davis, but I thought this was supposed to be a starting quarterback competition.

I agree. I will be pretty surprised if the Rams don't start next season with Bradford (Health permitting!), a different veteran QB (Trade, FA, etc) and a rookie as their 3 QB's. I honestly don't foresee either Davis or Hill being on the Rams roster at the beginning of next season.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,849
Name
Stu
Oh no you dint. Just shoot me now.

Or I suppose our defense would be THAT good and I guess I'd take that.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,849
Name
Stu
Dilfer was a career 55% passer, had far more INTs than he did TDs, never threw for 3000 yards in an entire season, averaged under 160 yards per game, and is flat out unwatchable as a TV personality. Hill and Davis are already better than he ever was. The guy is a hack and didn't take anyone to the playoffs - his teams carried him. Baltimore won in spite of Dilfer and they unceremoniously dumped him after being the winning QB in the Superbowl. When does that happen? Hell - he only started 8 games during the season for Baltimore after Tony Freaking Banks went down. He was 2nd string to BANKS!
 

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,457
Dilfer was a career 55% passer, had far more INTs than he did TDs, never threw for 3000 yards in an entire season, averaged under 160 yards per game, and is flat out unwatchable as a TV personality. Hill and Davis are already better than he ever was. The guy is a hack and didn't take anyone to the playoffs - his teams carried him. Baltimore won in spite of Dilfer and they unceremoniously dumped him after being the winning QB in the Superbowl. When does that happen? Hell - he only started 8 games during the season for Baltimore after Tony Freaking Banks went down. He was 2nd string to BANKS!
Sort of amazing considering how much of a no miss Dilfer was considered leaving college.
 

fancents86

Starter
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
997
Well let's think about this situation with a better oline. If we get a much a better oline by next season, and have either Hill or Davis play I bet they have a much better chance putting up better numbers. Not great numbers but enough to have us win games. But let's hope we don't have to come to this again.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,849
Name
Stu
I'm comparing Dilfer to other QBs. I am kind of over stating my hatred for his game. I just don't see him as better than Davis or Hill when he was playing. Give Davis or Hill that Baltimore or Tampa O-line and Defense and I think the Rams roll with Davis. Our defense ended the year very strong but we certainly didn't help our offense much at the beginning. I know a lot of people don't like Davis for his turn overs - especially the ones that resulted in points. But IMO Dilfer would have tanked even worse.

I know it's not a popular belief but I think Davis DOES have some upside. Do I want him as our starter? Hell no. But could he be serviceable for a few or more games in relief? I think so - especially if he has a better O-line.