Mea Culpa

[Vitamike]

You must admit Smed, you do make a lot of excuses for QB's you like and are hyper critical of those you don't.

I'm actually not a big fan of either at this point however see a possible future with Austin if he can grow into the type of QB Fisher wants/needs but that's about it.

 

[Smed55]

You must admit Smed, you do make a lot of excuses for QB's you like and are hyper critical of those you don't.

I'm actually not a big fan of either at this point however see a possible future with Austin if he can grow into the type of QB Fisher wants/needs but that's about it.

So what part of that do you disagree with? I don't dislike Hill, I just feel he is there in case something happens, which he was when Bradford got hurt. Then Davis took over and did a good job, and Hill was there again in case something happened to Davis.

Tell me what the purpose is of Hill starting, where are we going with him?

Do you disagree that the defenses Davis went up against are better than Denver,SD, and Oakland?

Do you disagree that the screen pass was nonexistent in our offense earlier?

Do you disagree that Davis was under constant pressure before he even started scrambling?

Do you disagree that having Mason running the ball isn't helping Hill out? Davis didn't have that!

Do you disagree that our defense lost a couple games that Davis started, otherwise he would have been 5-3 as our starter?

Ill admit, i didn't like Bradford as our starting QB, I don't mind Hill, I just don't think he should be starting, he has no upside.

Davis showed more emotion and more upside than Bradford ever did, he shows a lot of promise, he had some good to great games, I like him because I saw more out of him than I've seen out of any QB we have had in years. I don't agree with shutting him down, if anything they should have game planned for him, given him some screen passes, given, him Mason, let alone you keep saying that our defense is playing better because Hill is our QB, I call BS, our defense is just playing better because they or the DC got their heads out of their asses, or maybe we were just playing better teams earlier, I'm not going to base our defense arriving because of 3 games. They play well the rest of the year, otherwise it was just a good stretch against teams that weren't playing well.

 

[Vitamike]

Tell me what the purpose is of Hill starting, where are we going with him?

I've told you time and time again just you're not buying....

Do you disagree that the defenses Davis went up against are better than Denver, SD, and Oakland?

Let's see, for Hill both Denver and San Diego have very good defenses, Oakland not so much but they had been playing well having good games vs San Diego and Kansas City. For Davis, Seattle, San Fran and Arizona all have very good defenses however Dallas, Tampa and Philly not so much.

Do you disagree that the screen pass was nonexistent in our offense earlier?

No opinion, I really haven't noticed one way or the other.

Do you disagree that Davis was under constant pressure before he even started scrambling?

No, Davis has played well for many snaps but he had his stretches where once he got rattled from pressure he started scrambling a lot. Our opponents clued in and brought more pressure as a direct result.

Do you disagree that having Mason running the ball isn't helping Hill out? Davis didn't have that!

Or is it the other way around? Hill starts off games with completion streaks, if you haven't noticed. Having that type of early success through the air opens up the running game. Besides, weren't you the one on here complaining about our rushing effort after subtracting Mason's big run from his YPC?

Do you disagree that our defense lost a couple games that Davis started, otherwise he would have been 5-3 as our starter?

Absolutely not! I see it the other way around brother.

Ill admit, i didn't like Bradford as our starting QB, I don't mind Hill, I just don't think he should be starting, he has no upside.

Well, no long term upside. Hill is a better game manager at this point in time in their careers.

Davis showed more emotion and more upside than Bradford ever did, he shows a lot of promise, he had some good to great games, I like him because I saw more out of him than I've seen out of any QB we have had in years. I don't agree with shutting him down, if anything they should have game planned for him, given him some screen passes, given, him Mason, let alone you keep saying that our defense is playing better because Hill is our QB, I call BS, our defense is just playing better because they or the DC got their heads out of their asses, or maybe we were just playing better teams earlier, I'm not going to base our defense arriving because of 3 games. They play well the rest of the year, otherwise it was just a good stretch against teams that weren't playing well.

Again, what a coincidence.

With Hill under center we've improved on 3 down conversions, we don't get take nearly as many sacks per game and we are winnig the time of possession and are plus in turnovers.

You call it BS although all I'm saying is Davis can play that type of role we need but when he gets uncomfortable, he reverts back to his old habits and he becomes a greater liability than Hill. Which brings me to Hill, IMO he is just the lesser evil in the short run. In the long run I'd rather have Davis work through these issues. The only thing, it's not my decision so I'm good with it.

 

[Smed55]

I've told you time and time again just you're not buying....

Let's see, for Hill both Denver and San Diego have very good defenses, Oakland not so much but they had been playing well having good games vs San Diego and Kansas City. For Davis, Seattle, San Fran and Arizona all have very good defenses however Dallas, Tampa and Philly not so much.

No opinion, I really haven't noticed one way or the other.

No, Davis has played well for many snaps but he had his stretches where once he got rattled from pressure he started scrambling a lot. Our opponents clued in and brought more pressure as a direct result.

Or is it the other way around? Hill starts off games with completion streaks, if you haven't noticed. Having that type of early success through the air opens up the running game. Besides, weren't you the one on here complaining about our rushing effort after subtracting Mason's big run from his YPC?

Absolutely not! I see it the other way around brother.

Well, no long term upside. Hill is a better game manager at this point in time in their careers.

Again, what a coincidence.

With Hill under center we've improved on 3 down conversions, we don't get take nearly as many sacks per game and we are winnig the time of possession and are plus in turnovers.

You call it BS although all I'm saying is Davis can play that type of role we need but when he gets uncomfortable, he reverts back to his old habits and he becomes a greater liability than Hill. Which brings me to Hill, IMO he is just the lesser evil in the short run. In the long run I'd rather have Davis work through these issues. The only thing, it's not my decision so I'm good with it.

Wow! Talk about blinders. I watch every game, I tape every game, if you haven't seen that Davis has had to scramble because he had absolutely no protection, then I you must be watching some different games than I am?

Yes Mason has had some good games, yes this last one he had one big run and that was pretty much it, but they have gone to the screen pass, which they weren't doing before! And if you don't think our defense lost the SF and Dallas game than you do have blinders on.

You say Hill is a better option now and that Davis needs to regroup or whatever, Davis can't do that on the bench, we aren't going to the playoffs! Would you just rather use a high draft pick on another QB that might or might not pan out? Isn't that the idea of playing Davis to see if maybe or maybe not he pans out and if he does we don't have to "waste" that high pick on a QB?

There are a ton of bad QB's starting in the NFL, there are a handful of good ones, I think right now with the talent we have, all we need right now is an average QB. If Davis started the rest of the year, how would that hurt the Rams?

You say Davis has regressed, he had two bad games, made some young QB mistakes, yet you are ok that Hill lost the SD for us, makes no sense whatsoever!

 

[27mtrcougar]

I think the Hill is starting because he gives the Rams the best chance at winning games. He manages the games with fewer critical mistakes. Bottom line is they want wins. I'm just wondering what happens if Hill would've been in there the entire time?

 

[shopson67]

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!

Reacting instead of thinking makes a huge difference.

Ultimately, Davis vs Hill this year doesn't matter...it should be Davis that sticks around next year. Hill will soon be out to pasture. Right now, Hill is the veteran influence that minimizes the big mistakes on offense and keeps the defense in better field position (and better rested).

 

[Smed55]

Reacting instead of thinking makes a huge difference.

Ultimately, Davis vs Hill this year doesn't matter...it should be Davis that sticks around next year. Hill will soon be out to pasture. Right now, Hill is the veteran influence that minimizes the big mistakes on offense and keeps the defense in better field position (and better rested).

Well maybe you guys are right and I'm just not getting it. I guess I'm wrong about Hill, in 4 games this year he made a huge mistake in two of them, one directly cost us the game, in the other one his mistake put us down by two scores before he "supposedly" got hurt!

I guess I'm not seeing that in the Raider game he kept the defense in better field position because our average possession started at our own 40 yard line.

I guess I'm not seeing that Hill directly got us 5 turnovers that got our defense off the field and kept them better rested!

Bottom line is we would still be in the same position with Davis in there, if not possibly be in the playoff picture

 

[zeke2829]

Well maybe you guys are right and I'm just not getting it. I guess I'm wrong about Hill, in 4 games this year he made a huge mistake in two of them, one directly cost us the game, in the other one his mistake put us down by two scores before he "supposedly" got hurt!

I guess I'm not seeing that in the Raider game he kept the defense in better field position because our average possession started at our own 40 yard line.

I guess I'm not seeing that Hill directly got us 5 turnovers that got our defense off the field and kept them better rested!

Bottom line is we would still be in the same position with Davis in there, if not possibly be in the playoff picture

He got benched! I recorded that game and re-watched. It was pretty obvious that Fisher was pissed off and wanted to see what Davis could do. At that time Davis was coming off a great pre season.

I pretty much agree with most of what you say. I still think that Hill could have a really bad game then Fisher would yank him in favor of Davis. I don't think we've seen the last of Davis!

 

[Smed55]

He got benched! I recorded that game and re-watched. It was pretty obvious that Fisher was pissed off and wanted to see what Davis could do. At that time Davis was coming off a great pre season.

I pretty much agree with most of what you say. I still think that Hill could have a really bad game then Fisher would yank him in favor of Davis. I don't think we've seen the last of Davis!

Thanks Zeke, Im not sure, but I think it's about 50/50 as far as Ram fans in here that think either Davis or Hill should be our starter! I'm just not seeing the leadership that the Hill supporters are seeing.

 

[Vitamike]

Thanks Zeke, Im not sure, but I think it's about 50/50 as far as Ram fans in here that think either Davis or Hill should be our starter! I'm just not seeing the leadership that the Hill supporters are seeing.

Neither are or should be our guy right now, both have issues.

The difference, Davis has the 'potential' to be our leader where Hill is just a good fill in the gap guy for right now.

 

[zeke2829]

Neither are or should be our guy right now, both have issues.

The difference, Davis has the 'potential' to be our leader where Hill is just a good fill in the gap guy for right now.

^^That's exactly right^^

I don't want to see Davis leave, but I could care less about Hill. I believe if we add a couple of more weapons opposing teams might not blitz as much. That if Davis gets a little more time in the pocket he will tear it up! We are just too easy to figure out. We have success in the 1st half then boom they adjust and shut us down. A lot falls on Shotty.

+ It all starts up front on the line as well. Hell look how good Sanchez is doing in Philly right now! Now that's a balanced offense that is stacked in every aspect. Power run game, great wrs, ST and a brick wall of a line! They are making Sanchez (butt fumble guy) resurrect his career. I would like to see Davis play with that!

I think going into the offseason we will try to re-sign Davis and let Hill walk. Davis did make a lot of mistakes at crucial times, but man that kids got fire! We actually have a lot invested in Davis! He has been carrying a clipboard for 3 years now. I know deep down inside V-mike agrees!

 

[shopson67]

Well maybe you guys are right and I'm just not getting it. I guess I'm wrong about Hill, in 4 games this year he made a huge mistake in two of them, one directly cost us the game, in the other one his mistake put us down by two scores before he "supposedly" got hurt!

I guess I'm not seeing that in the Raider game he kept the defense in better field position because our average possession started at our own 40 yard line.

I guess I'm not seeing that Hill directly got us 5 turnovers that got our defense off the field and kept them better rested!

Bottom line is we would still be in the same position with Davis in there, if not possibly be in the playoff picture

Obviously the Raider game was an anomaly; can't base anything on that drubbing, as the Rams can't expect to play XFL level teams each week. In general, Hill is the steadier hand.

Hill has only had one turnover returned for a TD. That is "directly" costing the team a game. Davis had at least 5 turnovers returned for TDs.

The only loss you can potentially blame on Hill would be the San Diego game. If the Rams win that game, they are still 2 games out of a wildcard and 3 out of winning the division with 4 games remaining. That's only in the playoff picture mathematically, as the team would essentially have to win out (with games remaining against Arizona and at Seattle that would be big upsets). Davis' gift TDs cost the Rams the Dallas game and any chance at a comeback in the Arizona game.

You must really like Davis, it's seems to be clouding your judgement.

 

[Smed55]

Obviously the Raider game was an anomaly; can't base anything on that drubbing, as the Rams can't expect to play XFL level teams each week. In general, Hill is the steadier hand.

Hill has only had one turnover returned for a TD. That is "directly" costing the team a game. Davis had at least 5 turnovers returned for TDs.

The only loss you can potentially blame on Hill would be the San Diego game. If the Rams win that game, they are still 2 games out of a wildcard and 3 out of winning the division with 4 games remaining. That's only in the playoff picture mathematically, as the team would essentially have to win out (with games remaining against Arizona and at Seattle that would be big upsets). Davis' gift TDs cost the Rams the Dallas game and any chance at a comeback in the Arizona game.

You must really like Davis, it's seems to be clouding your judgement.

I do like Davis, but I don't think you can blame Davis for the Dallas game, he had them up 21-0, sorry but that loss is on the defense, Davis only got picked 6 because the defense collapsed and Davis had to try to make something happen. Again the same scenario in the Arizona game, and actually his receiver(Cook)tips the ball into the air and it gets picked 6 that's not all on Davis, although it wasn't a real good throw.

So Hills interception where he was pulled in the first game after he threw an interception didn't change the complexion of that game?

Again, if the Ram defense doesn't play horribly in the Dallas, SF, and Philly game, Davis could have possibly had the Rams sitting at 5-3 or maybe even 6-2, he had two bad games. Hill has done nothing! The defense is winning these games, not Hill

 

[shopson67]

I do like Davis, but I don't think you can blame Davis for the Dallas game, he had them up 21-0, sorry but that loss is on the defense, Davis only got picked 6 because the defense collapsed and Davis had to try to make something happen. Again the same scenario in the Arizona game, and actually his receiver(Cook)tips the ball into the air and it gets picked 6 that's not all on Davis, although it wasn't a real good throw.

So Hills interception where he was pulled in the first game after he threw an interception didn't change the complexion of that game?

Again, if the Ram defense doesn't play horribly in the Dallas, SF, and Philly game, Davis could have possibly had the Rams sitting at 5-3 or maybe even 6-2, he had two bad games. Hill has done nothing! The defense is winning these games, not Hill

Hill's interception resulted in a change in possession, not immediate points for the other team. Davis had that game in his hands in the fourth quarter and threw a TD for the Cowboys. BTW, Davis had them up 14-0 not 21-0, the other TD was a Jenkins pick 6.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The two QBs are pretty equal across the board in stats, except one has a tendency to give points directly to the opposition. Of course you make the switch.

 

[zeke2829]

Hill's interception resulted in a change in possession, not immediate points for the other team. Davis had that game in his hands in the fourth quarter and threw a TD for the Cowboys. BTW, Davis had them up 14-0 not 21-0, the other TD was a Jenkins pick 6.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The two QBs are pretty equal across the board in stats, except one has a tendency to give points directly to the opposition. Of course you make the switch.

 

[Smed55]

Hill's interception resulted in a change in possession, not immediate points for the other team. Davis had that game in his hands in the fourth quarter and threw a TD for the Cowboys. BTW, Davis had them up 14-0 not 21-0, the other TD was a Jenkins pick 6.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The two QBs are pretty equal across the board in stats, except one has a tendency to give points directly to the opposition. Of course you make the switch.

And I don't see why it's so hard for you to see the difference between Davis having to drive 79 yards late in the fourth quarter with his team down, after his team's defense put them behind after he got them a more than comfortable lead early.

Then I don't understand what you don't get about Hills interception? We are inside SD's five yard line, that should be almost automatic the way we were running the ball, but he made a mistake.

I'm pretty sure it's easier to win a game from inside the opponents 5 yard line than it is to have to drive 79 yards! You say Davis directly gave the opponent points, I guess it doesn't make any sense that Hill took points away from us, that cost us the game.

Hill really hasn't done anything better than Davis would have if Davis was still in there. Defense pretty much won the games against Denver and Oakland, Hill didn't lose the SD game but he was the biggest contributor to the lose!


Finally, I don't understand why you don't understand, that you role the dice with Davis to see, if he is your answer next year as your back up, or if he plays well the rest of the year, he could possibly be good enough to be or at least compete to be your starter next year.

Next year we definitely don't want Hill to be the starter, you seriously can't count on Bradford to be the starter, odds are against a rookie being the starter, and the list of FA's is nothing to get excited about, that leaves Davis, but we don't know what he would do or how he would possibly progress , because he's sitting on the bench