Mea Culpa

[SDPaddlefish]

OK, I must admit that I thought that Williams was a bust as DC at the beginning of the year and said so. He has certainly turned things around and obviously, and deservedly, I have had such talk shoved where it hurts. But, good job Williams and may it continue through next year. (No change in my opinion of our OC, however, despite today's game). Have a great day!

 

[Rambunctious]

The defense has jelled and seems to have figured out what Williams is trying to do. I too must eat my words. Go Rams defense....great game for all four quarters.

 

[jacobarch]

eh, i have a different outlook on Williams. I still think he blitzes waaaaay too much. I think you guys are being a little short sighted here. Remember last week? When our Defense got torched?

 

[ozarkram]

eh, i have a different outlook on Williams. I still think he blitzes waaaaay too much. I think you guys are being a little short sighted here. Remember last week? When our Defense got torched?

No.

 

[Retroram52]

I agree with Ozark.

 

[RamsFan]

Rams D has played well for the last month and the only game that they didn't play as well was against San Diego. San Diego showed today that they have a pretty good offense when they scored 3 times in the 4th quarter.

 

[Vitamike]

Rams D has played well for the last month and the only game that they didn't play as well was against San Diego. San Diego showed today that they have a pretty good offense when they scored 3 times in the 4th quarter.

I don't know that they didn't play well enough in the San Diego game either RamsFan.

In that game the Rams defense gave up 17 points from field positions starting after a punt and 3 points after an 18 yard drive from an INT. That's a total of 20 points but we should still subtract the 7 points the defense added on the pick 6. That comes to a net -13 points for the San Diego game.

When your Defense yields a net 13 points, they usually get a win.

I'd say that was a damn good effort in that game too!

 

[Smed55]

I don't know that they didn't play well enough in the San Diego game either RamsFan.

In that game the Rams defense gave up 17 points from field positions starting after a punt and 3 points after an 18 yard drive from an INT. That's a total of 20 points but we should still subtract the 7 points the defense added on the pick 6. That comes to a net -13 points for the San Diego game.

When your Defense yields a net 13 points, they usually get a win.

I'd say that was a damn good effort in that game too!

The defense has played very well, that's why I'm scratching my head, that it's this much better. It's still hard to believe that we weren't getting any sacks early in the year, I don't care if it was a new system or not, you are still rushing the QB and you would think under any system we should have still been getting some sacks?

Plus if the defense had played like this earlier in the year, Davis would still be our Q! hill is reaping the benefits of our defense!

 

[Retroram52]

Yep Vita. Spot on as usual. Smed, it is indeed a conundrum of sorts.

 

[Vitamike]

The defense has played very well, that's why I'm scratching my head, that it's this much better. It's still hard to believe that we weren't getting any sacks early in the year, I don't care if it was a new system or not, you are still rushing the QB and you would think under any system we should have still been getting some sacks?

Plus if the defense had played like this earlier in the year, Davis would still be our Q! hill is reaping the benefits of our defense!

To me it's all about mitigating poor QB play. Currently Hill provides the greater opportunity for good QB play than Davis but is still vulnerable as we saw in the San Diego game.

Yep Vita. Spot on as usual. Smed, it is indeed a conundrum of sorts.

Thanks Retro and you're right, it is a conundrum.

Hill mitigates some risk for poor QB play but has no future in the NFL as a real starter, I think he is a fine back up who is at the end of his career and can give you a few wins if your starter goes down for 3 or 4 weeks.

Davis has the upside to be a starter in the league but currently has too many flaws to start on a ball controll team like ours.

We have a fast young defense.

Fisher wants to let them fly around, do their thing and get off the field. To maintain that type of effort throughout the game and all four quarters requires a ball controlled offensive. One that can keep the chains moving with a solid 4 to 4.5 yards per carry rushing attack. Keeping down and distance manageable by not taking unnecessary sacks and by not turning over the ball on critical downs is paramount to this philosophy.

I think Davis has been and can be that guy but it got away from him and he got the hook. That is why I wanted to keep him in there, let him take his lumps and grow but like I've always said, it's Fisher's job to lose not mine, so I'll back him 100%.

 

[ozarkram]

To me it's all about mitigating poor QB play. Currently Hill provides the greater opportunity for good QB play than Davis but is still vulnerable as we saw in the San Diego game.

Thanks Retro and you're right, it is a conundrum.

Hill mitigates some risk for poor QB play but has no future in the NFL as a real starter, I think he is a fine back up who is at the end of his career and can give you a few wins if your starter goes down for 3 or 4 weeks.

Davis has the upside to be a starter in the league but currently has too many flaws to start on a ball controll team like ours.

We have a fast young defense.

Fisher wants to let them fly around, do their thing and get off the field. To maintain that type of effort throughout the game and all four quarters requires a ball controlled offensive. One that can keep the chains moving with a solid 4 to 4.5 yards per carry rushing attack. Keeping down and distance manageable by not taking unnecessary sacks and by not turning over the ball on critical downs is paramount to this philosophy.

I think Davis has been and can be that guy but it got away from him and he got the hook. That is why I wanted to keep him in there, let him take his lumps and grow but like I've always said, it's Fisher's job to lose not mine, so I'll back him 100%.

This is pretty dam good right here.

 

[Smed55]

To me it's all about mitigating poor QB play. Currently Hill provides the greater opportunity for good QB play than Davis but is still vulnerable as we saw in the San Diego game.

Thanks Retro and you're right, it is a conundrum.

Hill mitigates some risk for poor QB play but has no future in the NFL as a real starter, I think he is a fine back up who is at the end of his career and can give you a few wins if your starter goes down for 3 or 4 weeks.

Davis has the upside to be a starter in the league but currently has too many flaws to start on a ball controll team like ours.

We have a fast young defense.

Fisher wants to let them fly around, do their thing and get off the field. To maintain that type of effort
throughout the game and all four quarters requires a ball controlled offensive. One that can keep the chains moving with a solid 4 to 4.5 yards per carry rushing attack. Keeping down and distance manageable by not taking unnecessary sacks and by not turning over the ball on critical downs is paramount to this philosophy.

I think Davis has been and can be that guy but it got away from him and he got the hook. That is why I wanted to keep him in there, let him take his lumps and grow but like I've always said, it's Fisher's job to lose not mine, so I'll back him 100%.

Again, I agree with you! But at the same time, we are not going anywhere, so it doesn't really matter if we take our lumps (if we actually take any) with Davis in there. I'm sorry but if we are "now" going to play ball control, I'm sure Davis could have handed the ball off to Mason, just as well as Hill did on that 89 yard run!

Our oline still isn't that good, occasionally RB's find a hole, Mason found a couple, otherwise our running game really wasn't all that good, the two long runs made our running stats a little deceiving, Mason actually turned a few others into more yards than he should have. The oline really didn't have to pass protect that much either, Oakland just isn't very good!

 

[ozarkram]

Darn deceiving stats. I hate that.

 

[Vitamike]

Again, I agree with you! But at the same time, we are not going anywhere, so it doesn't really matter if we take our lumps (if we actually take any) with Davis in there. I'm sorry but if we are "now" going to play ball control, I'm sure Davis could have handed the ball off to Mason, just as well as Hill did on that 89 yard run!

Our oline still isn't that good, occasionally RB's find a hole, Mason found a couple, otherwise our running game really wasn't all that good, the two long runs made our running stats a little deceiving, Mason actually turned a few others into more yards than he should have. The oline really didn't have to pass protect that much either, Oakland just isn't very good!

Davis was regressing plain and simple. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way but that's what I saw.

Smart QB play isn't just about handing off the ball. It's about managing downs and distance and keeping your offensive line fresh by making quick reads when teams blitz.

Davis started scrambling to buy time whenever defenses would bring heat which encouraged defensive coordinators to continue to do so. All that scrambling would gas our offensive lineman and they would begin to play for shit and wiff on blocks.

Davis stopped looking for his hot receivers on these type of plays. Getting rid of the ball quickly is critical to ball control. Scrambling often gets your ass sacked and then your 2nd and 5 is now a 3rd and 12. This is what I mean by ball control and managing down and distance and it has nothing to do with handing the ball off.

This is why I predicted better O line play and said Hill would not get sacked nearly as much as Davis. So far, that prediction is indisputable.

Also Oakland isn't as bad as you let on either.

They have been very competitive in many games.

Lost on the road by a TD to the Patriots
Lost twice to the Chargers. By 3 at home and by a TD on the road.
Lost on the road by 6 to the Seahawks.
Beat the Chiefs.

All of those teams are over .500, are in the playoff hunt and struggled to get a win v the Raiders.

The last two Raiders games prior to ours, those Raiders gave up 33 total points. That team has played some defense.

 

[Smed55]

Davis was regressing plain and simple. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way but that's what I saw.

Smart QB play isn't just about handing off the ball. It's about managing downs and distance and keeping your offensive line fresh by making quick reads when teams blitz.

Davis started scrambling to buy time whenever defenses would bring heat which encouraged defensive coordinators to continue to do so. All that scrambling would gas our offensive lineman and they would begin to play for shit and wiff on blocks.

Davis stopped looking for his hot receivers on these type of plays. Getting rid of the ball quickly is critical to ball control. Scrambling often gets your ass sacked and then your 2nd and 5 is now a 3rd and 12. This is what I mean by ball control and managing down and distance and it has nothing to do with handing the ball off.

This is why I predicted better O line play and said Hill would not get sacked nearly as much as Davis. So far, that prediction is indisputable.

Also Oakland isn't as bad as you let on either.

They have been very competitive in many games.

Lost on the road by a TD to the Patriots
Lost twice to the Chargers. By 3 at home and by a TD on the road.

Lost on the road by 6 to the Seahawks.
Beat the Chiefs.

All of those teams are over .500, are in the playoff hunt and struggled to get a win v the Raiders.

The last two Raiders games prior to ours, those Raiders gave up 33 total points. That team has played some defense.

You're not telling me anything, I understand about smart QB play, and you are correct you are seeing what you are seeing. I'm not the only one on here that sees that Hill isn't doing anything that Davis wasn't or couldn't be doing. I don't know if you have noticed but teams were blitzing us a lot more than they are now, when Davis was in there we pretty much didn't know what a screen pass was, gee Shotty seems to have implemented that into the game plan the last few games, hmm, imagine how much that helps. I don't know what you are seeing, but it's not like Hill is making these miraculous quick decisions to help our Oline
out. That was proven when he pretty much cost us the game against SD!

You are correct, Oakland isn't as bad as they played, but they are still probably the worst team in the
league. It's absolutely the worst game they played this year, Denver also played their worst game of the year against us, now I will agree part of that was because of the Rams, it wasn't because they were going up against the mighty Shaun Hill.

As SJ keeps saying, what would Hill do against Arizonas, SF's, and Seattle's defenses, we will never know, because he didn't have go up against them, although if he is still standing we may see what he does against Seattle in the last game. People rip Davis, but his mistakes happen when he is trying to bring the Rams back, we have also seen that Hill failed miserably in the one game he tried to bring us back, supposedly something a smart, savvy, experienced, veteran QB shouldn't do, or according to some of you, Hill won't make the same mistakes that Davis will

I think that game alone proves that you are wrong about that

 

[Smed55]

Vita, also our oline plays like shit from the get go, it's not because Davis is scrambling and they get tired and start whiffing on blocks. Davis was scrambling because the defense was getting there shortly after the ball did, plain and simple, he never had time, something that Hill hasn't experienced yet. And it's not because Hill is making these great reads and getting rid of the ball quicker, plain and simple Hill is getting more time!

Our oline is playing better, but it's still not very good. I assume you think our oline did a great job of run blocking yesterday, well no they didn't , Mason just happened to cut back for a 89 yard TD, other than that our running game was not that good, why because our oline still isn't good, but that TD play sure made them look like they were good.

We didn't win 52-0 because of our smart QB play, the defense gets all the credit here, along with the
Mason run, Hill was average! Again, any average QB would have won behind what Hill was given in this game!

Nothing personnel Vita, I actually like arguing with you!

 

[Vitamike]

Nothing personnel Vita, I actually like arguing with you!

I can get with that, as long as we are not arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Smed55]

I can get with that, as long as we are not arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I see that you think Hill should be in there, and I think Davis should be. I think it only makes sense to play the young guy that might or might not be the answer next year, we know that Hill IS NOT the answer for next year.

And as we all know that decision is out of our hands and in Fishers! Doesn't mean that Fisher made the right decision, because we all know that he has made many many bad decisions!

 

[Vitamike]

No, I see that you think Hill should be in there, and I think Davis should be. I think it only makes sense to play the young guy that might or might not be the answer next year, we know that Hill IS NOT the answer for next year.

And as we all know that decision is out of our hands and in Fishers! Doesn't mean that Fisher made the right decision, because we all know that he has made many many bad decisions!

Well, you are wrong about that. I've been saying all season that I think Davis should be in there.

Davis has done a lot of those same things I talk about Hill doing except he got bumped off his comfort level and moved to what his knows best.

Keep the play alive.

Defensive Coordinators saw his tendencies and found that with pressure, he would regress back to this type of play. That is why teams are no longer blitzing us like they did when Davis was in there. Hill can't do that so he has no choice but to try and beat you with the quick outlet passes when facing blitz packages.

In a ball control system trying to keep the play alive or go down field on every play simply does not work. Sometimes the defense gives you the dink or dunk by blitzing and that can give you a lot of YAC. Hell, Joe Montana made a living and paved his way to the HOF with those very type of passes in his repertoire.

I truly believe that Austin Davis can play within Fisher's system and can find a place for his 'keep the play alive' attitude. IMO there is a place for that type of mindset, just not on every passing down and even then, keeping possession is critical during those type of plays.

Davis started to struggle in both of those areas so I understand why Fisher pulled him. Personally I would have liked to see Davis work through those issues in practice and on the playing field because I saw him do what Fisher asked of his QB many times over in the games he did play in.

I guess I am okay with the move to Hill for two reasons.

1. Davis relied heavily on B. Quick and when Quick went down Davis regressed.
2. I feel there must be a plan in place to get a long term guy outside of any QB we've already had under Center during the Snisher tenure.
​

 

[Smed55]

Well, you are wrong about that. I've been saying all season that I think Davis should be in there.

Davis has done a lot of those same things I talk about Hill doing except he got bumped off his comfort level and moved to what his knows best.

Keep the play alive.

Defensive Coordinators saw his tendencies and found that with pressure, he would regress back to this type of play. That is why teams are no longer blitzing us like they did when Davis was in there. Hill can't do that so he has no choice but to try and beat you with the quick outlet passes when facing blitz packages.

In a ball control system trying to keep the play alive or go down field on every play simply does not work. Sometimes the defense gives you the dink or dunk by blitzing and that can give you a lot of YAC. Hell, Joe Montana made a living and paved his way to the HOF with those very type of passes in his repertoire.


I truly believe that Austin Davis can play within Fisher's system and can find a place for his 'keep the play alive' attitude. IMO there is a place for that type of mindset, just not on every passing down and even then, keeping possession is critical during those type of plays.

Davis started to struggle in both of those areas so I understand why Fisher pulled him. Personally I would have liked to see Davis work through those issues in practice and on the playing field because I saw him do what Fisher asked of his QB many times over in the games he did play in.

I guess I am okay with the move to Hill for two reasons.

1. Davis relied heavily on B. Quick and
when Quick went down Davis regressed.
2. I feel there must be a plan in place to get a long term guy outside of any QB we've already had under Center during the Snisher tenure.
​

Well I do see some of your points yet at the same time I don't agree with them. It's like beating a dead horse, let Davis play so we can see what he has, or if he learned anything, or can learn.

I don't believe that Hill is getting off quick passes when he's blitzed, I'm not seeing it, because I'm not seeing him get pressured the way Davis was. As I said Davis was running for his life because he had to, our oline was not doing anything to slow down the rush, maybe it was because the defenses they were playing with Davis in there were just better than the ones Hill is facing. I'm sorry, but I see Hill back there with all day to throw quite often, I never saw that when Davis was in there. I haven't seen the quick decision making out of Hill that evidently you are.

As far as Davis looking for Quick, ya he probably was, that was our only deep threat, but he did throw to Cook quite often also, who has dropped a ton of passes this year. Britt has been pretty much invisible except for one really good game. And all of a sudden Bailey is playing, you don't think that is helping Hill, Bailey has made some pretty nice catches of poorly thrown balls by Hill.

Again, playing Hill is putting us where? it serves no purpose whatsoever to play Hill. I do believe Davis would have won both games against Denver and Oakland, you don't? I also believe we could have won the SD game if Davis had been in there!