Where Austin Davis, Shaun Hill fit for Rams/Wagoner

[Thordaddy]

fair enough.


Do you accept the premise that Austin Davis was a week away from not being on the roster? Were it not for Bradford's injury, he would have been back coaching the Westminister High School team. If you in fact agree with that, doesn't it say something about the guys pedigree, that he couldn't make it out of his 3rd camp with the same organization?

No I don't largely because he was going to get pre-season playing time to try and make the team and FWIW he did pretty well, practice players aren't always gamers,or vice versa. He impressed Faulk in the pre season games AND it's a prediction of what would have happened had something that did happen wouldn't have , a premise YOU have consistently ignored when others have said Davis WITH the defense giving him the support Hill got likely wins the Dallas game maybe the Philly game add in the Oakland and Washington and we would have won 7 .
IF you want to talk woulda shoulda coulda, you need to allow it,that doesn't count a game against Denver where the D allowed 7 points.
My contention is this Davis fell apart WHEN he was asked to win the games because the defense wasn't performing,when the defense held up he won more than he lost which by definition equates to a winning season.

The run first ethos many coaches preach is based on the way a great running game protects a defense and maybe a great running game IS a QB;s best friend ,his second best is a defense that gets him a lower point total to overcome.

I just can't help it man 4 first round picks on the d-line who didn't live up to their billing hurt Davis immeasurably, other defenses got to him less than his own

 

[CoachO]

No I don't largely because he was going to get pre-season playing time to try and make the team and FWIW he did pretty well, practice players aren't always gamers,or vice versa. He impressed Faulk in the pre season games AND it's a prediction of what would have happened had something that did happen wouldn't have , a premise YOU have consistently ignored when others have said Davis WITH the defense giving him the support Hill got likely wins the Dallas game maybe the Philly game add in the Oakland and Washington and we would have won 7 .
IF you want to talk woulda shoulda coulda, you need to allow it,that doesn't count a game against Denver where the D allowed 7 points.
My contention is this Davis fell apart WHEN he was asked to win the games because the defense wasn't performing,when the defense held up he won more than he lost which by definition equates to a winning season.

The run first ethos many coaches preach is based on the way a great running game protects a defense and maybe a great running game IS a QB;s best friend ,his second best is a defense that gets him a lower point total to overcome.

I just can't help it man 4 first round picks on the d-line who didn't live up to their billing hurt Davis immeasurably, other defenses got to him less than his own

Oh so now its the defenses fault? How could I have missed that?

This has never been about games won or lost by a QB for me. This is about how that particular QB played in the games he was given the opportunity to play in. This is about 9 INT's 8 games, 4 of which were "pick 6's". This is about a QB who for every "wow" play he made, he made multiple bad plays to follow those up with. Its about a QB who got dramatically worse the more he played, not the other way around. A QB who seemed totally overwhelmed as he took on more responsibility.

And that has NOTHING to do with the defense.

We just disagree on the merits of Davis as a starting QB at the NFL level. And if you honestly believe that Austin Davis was going to make this team with a healthy Bradford, then we have nothing left to talk about.

 

[WestCoastRam]

How about a different tact: I wonder if we can all agree. What Davis brought to the table last year was not enough, I'm only in his camp with the idea that he makes progress on all the things we're talking about. I think the difference is: O hasn't seen anything to predict progress and some of us are hoping for more.

 

[RamFan503]

I'd say two QB's, with a good PS QB will do fine!

Depends on how good that potential PS QB is. If he is good enough to be your #2, is he going to be snatched up by some back-up hungry team? Lots of teams need good #2s. If so, you have to carry three to protect him.

I honestly don't see how you go in with two with Bradford's history. I think it is an unfortunate thing we just have to deal with if Sam is back as the starter. And I do think Sam should be our starter barring set-backs.

 

[CoachO]

Here's the bottom line for me when it comes to Austin Davis.

He was an emergency fill in guy, who made a few plays early in the season, which seems to have made a lot of people overlook all the negative that was just as much a part of his game. He is a "gunslinger" in an offense, which doesn't need one. He plays for a coach who puts a premium on ball security, and Davis did not fit that mold in his time on the field.

Fisher made the comments about it "being his job" to keep him from looking over his shoulder. IMO, nothing more, nothing less. Davis did in fact show the ability to produce a "wow" play on occasion. And its these plays that I think stick in the minds of most who seem to think he "played well". It's the bad decisions that were more prevalent that stick out to me.

I do think he will be brought back for what will amount to be his 4th shot at showing he can be a consistent NFL QB. I just don't believe it will suddenly happen.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Depends on how good that potential PS QB is. If he is good enough to be your #2, is he going to be snatched up by some back-up hungry team? Lots of teams need good #2s. If so, you have to carry three to protect him.

I honestly don't see how you go in with two with Bradford's history. I think it is an unfortunate thing we just have to deal with if Sam is back as the starter. And I do think Sam should be our starter barring set-backs.

I get your point. I just have one question. Say we have a real good QB on our practice squad, and another team wants to try and sign him, Does that QB have to sign with the other team, or can he choose to stay with the Rams, if he wants to!!?

 

[-X-]

I get your point. I just have one question. Say we have a real good QB on our practice squad, and another team wants to try and sign him, Does that QB have to sign with the other team, or can he choose to stay with the Rams, if he wants to!!?

Only way he can stay with the Rams is if he gets promoted to the 53 man roster. Otherwise, the Rams have to let him go.

 

[RamFan503]

Or might it be because his last name isn't Bradford, so he must be better than every other guy on the roster?

You've made some outlandish assertions in this thread O , the more strident you become about them the less I for one put in even the reasonable ones.

You're way to emotionally invested in this topic, and especially Bradford, to have this discussion with so I'm wrapping it up on my end.

You're the most difficult person to have a discussion with on this topic on the board. I think you lack objectivity, but oh well, c'est la vie.

I think that maybe we are all getting a little too invested in our opinions here - yeah - me as well. While there are strong opinions here, I don't think it helps in essentially telling people their opinions are too strong or they are too invested in them or too divested in a player. It's a pretty fine line between that and making the post about the poster not the subject.

Just stick to the subject - yeah?

 

[Boffo97]

Oh so now its the defenses fault? How could I have missed that?

This has never been about games won or lost by a QB for me. This is about how that particular QB played in the games he was given the opportunity to play in. This is about 9 INT's 8 games, 4 of which were "pick 6's". This is about a QB who for every "wow" play he made, he made multiple bad plays to follow those up with. Its about a QB who got dramatically worse the more he played, not the other way around. A QB who seemed totally overwhelmed as he took on more responsibility.

And that has NOTHING to do with the defense.

We just disagree on the merits of Davis as a starting QB at the NFL level. And if you honestly believe that Austin Davis was going to make this team with a healthy Bradford, then we have nothing left to talk about.

The thing with looking at Davis' stats though is that his early games and later games told really different stories. Yes, he was bad in the later games where he got the yips. But in those early games, he was up there with some pretty rare company and I refuse to believe it's because "defenses weren't used to him yet".

But, neither Hill nor Davis will be in horns this year in all probability, so yeah...

 

[Dodgersrf]

And then they saw some potential in Davis, which I still see,many guys who've had a possible future in this league have been kicked to the curb prematurely, and IN game he outperformed Hill.

I'm not against Davis at all. I think he has earned the opportunity to show he can get better. He was fun to watch. I like him.

 

[WestCoastRam]

I will say, "the whole defenses aren't used to this guy" thing is a real phenomena that should be taken into account for everyone who plays. The mark of a good QB is that they continue to make adjustments and fine tune their game so that those issues aren't as big of a deal.

 

[Athos]

Hopefully not on the team as that'd mean we actually brought in a quality QB.

Not sure where we even get that though.

 

[RamFan503]

Hopefully not on the team as that'd mean we actually brought in a quality QB.

Not sure where we even get that though.

The $64,000 question - eh?

 

[Thordaddy]

Oh so now its the defenses fault? How could I have missed that?

This has never been about games won or lost by a QB for me. This is about how that particular QB played in the games he was given the opportunity to play in. This is about 9 INT's 8 games, 4 of which were "pick 6's". This is about a QB who for every "wow" play he made, he made multiple bad plays to follow those up with. Its about a QB who got dramatically worse the more he played, not the other way around. A QB who seemed totally overwhelmed as he took on more responsibility.

And that has NOTHING to do with the defense.

We just disagree on the merits of Davis as a starting QB at the NFL level. And if you honestly believe that Austin Davis was going to make this team with a healthy Bradford, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Not about games won? What else is there?

Not about the defense? The least number that can produce a win is 2-0 a defensive score ,the pick 6 Davis thew in the AZ game was CALLED because the defense gave up the lead to Az's backup QB,till then we had the game in hand,didn't need anything more than a flip the field punt and a defensive stand. You win and lose as a team,did Davis surrender a 21 point lead to Dallas? ( a record comeback)and for the record we disagree on his value as a backup the starting stuff ,well that is down the line if he develops,I never count anyone who wants to do what it takes to get better out,talented derelicts I drop the hammer on fast.

 

[CoachO]

Not about games won? What else is there?

Not about the defense? The least number that can produce a win is 2-0 a defensive score ,the pick 6 Davis thew in the AZ game was CALLED because the defense gave up the lead to Az's backup QB,till then we had the game in hand,didn't need anything more than a flip the field punt and a defensive stand. You win and lose as a team,did Davis surrender a 21 point lead to Dallas? ( a record comeback)and for the record we disagree on his value as a backup the starting stuff ,well that is down the line if he develops,I never count anyone who wants to do what it takes to get better out,talented derelicts I drop the hammer on fast.

the point is, this is a discussion about Austin Davis as a developing QB. I don't care in the least how the defense played in those games.

I understand the point you are trying to make. But in making it you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say if the defense has played better, Davis would have won games that the defense let him down. See, you can't have it both ways.

While the media likes to assign a W/L record to the starting QB, that is a worthless stat to me, for the very reasons you just stated. This is the ultimate team game, and saying that if the defense had not let HIM down, DAVIS would have won more games. Talking in circles?

And as far as the Dallas game, Davis more than contributed to relinquishing that 21 point lead with a devastating pick six.

Look, this is pointless. We just don't see eye to eye on this guy. Doubtful we ever will. So I am out of this conversation. I have taken up enough space in this thread, and nothing new is being discussed. I apologize to anyone who feels I crossed any "emotional lines" here.

 

[jrry32]

And as far as discounting Davis' accuracy if there was JUST ONE THING you couldn't criticize him for as a guy getting his first starts it would be that. Go look for yourself. I'll provide the link......

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviAu00/gamelog/

Well, if we're comparing Davis to the other QBs on our roster in terms of Accuracy%...
Sam Bradford(2013) - 74.7% accuracy% on 262 attempts
Shaun Hill(2014) - 74.4% accuracy% on 229 attempts
Austin Davis(2014) - 72.7% accuracy% on 285 attempts

 

[RamFan503]

I understand the point you are trying to make. But in making it you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say if the defense has played better, Davis would have won games that the defense let him down. See, you can't have it both ways.

The point I think being however is that a game starts to fall more and more on a QB the worse the D plays. If the D plays well, Davis is not forced to try to go 90 yards in one minute and if that is the case, he likely doesn't throw that pick six. It's not having it both ways, it is taking into account what a QB - especially a young and inexperienced one is being asked to do.

 

[Thordaddy]

the point is, this is a discussion about Austin Davis as a developing QB. I don't care in the least how the defense played in those games.

I understand the point you are trying to make. But in making it you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say if the defense has played better, Davis would have won games that the defense let him down. See, you can't have it both ways.
.

Like I said in different words it's situational, defenses strive to make offences one dimensional, our defense put Davis in situations where he had to pass by their poor play, it's part of the formula.
Had the defense not played very well in the NFC championship Kurt Warner wasn't playing well enough to get us in the SB and if they hadn't limited Tenn to well below our average offensive output we wouldn't have won it.
Defense always effects what chances a QB has to take and ours put the kid in a position that made him have to take chances, that's not perception it's quantifiable and the thread is about Davis vs. Hill,a small improvement by Davis over this off season and more consistent defensive support we could go 10-6
jrry said:Well, if we're comparing Davis to the other QBs on our roster in terms of Accuracy%...
Sam Bradford(2013) - 74.7% accuracy% on 262 attempts
Shaun Hill(2014) - 74.4% accuracy% on 229 attempts
Austin Davis(2014) - 72.7% accuracy% on 285 attempts

It's pretty well axiomatic the more you have to score the more you throw and accuracy suffers and those numbers are quite comparable