Rams@Buccaneers Post-Game Anaysis: Rams Win 17-16

[Vitamike]

Eh... I don't really see it. Yeah, the season isn't going all that swimmingly, but being only week 3, I don't think we're in "playing to develop" mode just yet. I think if we're looking at trying to salvage things, Hill is our best option. Besides, Davis been with the team for 2 years now. I don't see anything special about him. If we haven't seen it by now, I doubt we ever will.

It's nice to know we can count on him in a pinch (at least, it appears that way). But, he didn't do anything on Sunday to make me believe he's a full-time starter.

Caynine, a lot of us here believe Davis' 'development' could be merely time playing and practicing with the first team.

When you play with the scout team, you MUST play with the scout team AND against the scout team. When you play with the Starters, you GET to play with the starters and against the starters. There is a huge difference in how he may play given different protections, play calling and confidence in the players around him.

These type of experiences will either develop the chemistry with the other Starters or expose his skills or lack there of.

You say you don't see it but maybe you are not looking, much like our HC.

Did you see those two 4th quarter come from behind 3rd down conversions this young man made to put us in a position to win the game? He also made a huge play to beat the blitz deep on that drive where Quick failed but that didn't discourage him from making the plays on that drive to win the game....

Go quantify that vs NFL starts....

There is no future with Hill at the helm, he was brought in to be the backup and I think he plays a good role as a BACK UP, so why not keep him there, as the backup and if the young gun falters, bring him in to rap up the season....

Wait a minute... IT JUST HIT ME!

I knew I had seen this scenario play out before. I just couldn't put my finger on it. This guy look familiar? Nobody's mentioned him yet, but it might not be easy to recognize him without the beard...

Back in '05, Marc Bulger was injured and then backup Jamie Martin was playing in his place, until he himself was injured in a game against an awful Texans team. Enter everybody's favorite... the 3rd string QB... Ryan Fitzpatrick. He came in and led the Rams back from a 2 TD deficit, to win in OT. Everybody loved the kid. He was an overnight sensation in St. Louis. Our next "Kurt Warner story". Everybody wanted him to start... and start he did... and then we all found out why he was 3rd in the rotation.

I don't recall winning another game that year. Among some pretty awful outings though, I do recall him having a 5 INT game in there somewhere.

Do I think Davis is as bad as Fitzpatrick? I have no idea. But, I know the scenario is the same. Davis is the 3rd string QB for a reason. IMO, if you have a better option, you go with it (granted, back in '05, both Martin and Fitzpatrick were equally awful). 2nd is better than 3rd. Reinstating a "healthy" Shaun Hill is the smart move, IMO. I guess I could see if Hill was playing terribly when he was in there. Then I could see a tough decision.

But, going off the emotion of one win seems a bit knee-jerk or desperate to me. Then again... I suppose you could make the case that these are indeed desperate times.

That scenario has ZERO to do with our current situation. Those were entirely different QB's and it makes as much sense for you to bring this up as anyone trying to REALLY say that Austin will be the next Kurt Warner.

The real problem here is Jeff Fisher needs, really needs, to have a win THIS week (Which ever week it is) and from the demonstrated information at the moment,we have in totality, Hill is the guy.

That mindset has no valuation on the future and hurts us in the long run...

 

[Retroram52]

Well stated Vita, as usual!!

 

[Battlelyon]

McDonald puts punctuation mark on Rams' first win

 

[Red_Chaos]

McDonald puts punctuation mark on Rams' first win

And to think people didn't like this pick in the beginning

 

[Caynine29]

Look, Vita... don't get me wrong here. I am not "anti-Davis". If Fisher sees fit to start him despite Hill's availability, then so be it. To me, that would mean that he sees something in Davis that I don't and I trust that. (Although, it does beg the question, if he goes with Davis, is it still because of something he's "not looking at" regarding Hill, as you've implied earlier? Or does that only apply if Hill starts?)

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Austin Davis is "garbage". I just think he's exactly what his roster standing says he is. A 3rd string QB. I honestly liked what I saw out of him. But, I wasn't blown away. It's nice to know he can play like that in a pinch. But, I don't think he's the guy for full time duty. Of course, that's just my opinion. Had he thrown for 300+ and a couple TDs, even in a loss, I might be as enamored as everybody else seems to be. Simply managing to "not lose"... not so much. Granted, If he were the only option, I'd feel somewhat comfortable about him taking the reins after his performance last weekend.

We'll see how he does against Dallas. Far as I know, he's going to get the starting nod and I'm cool with that. I hope I'm dead wrong and he shines (like, REALLY shines. Not just get by). I'll even clean a great big platter for a heaping helping of the best tasting crow I've ever tasted.

People are talking like the mere thought of starting Hill again is absurd. I think some fans are so desperate for a win that they're losing sight of the big picture. That's when you start to see comments blindly comparing Davis' performance to that of a Pro Bowler. To me, desperately clinging to a 3rd string QB this early on is akin to throwing in the towel on the season. It's basically saying "Well... we're done. May as well develop some talent and evaluate for 2015.". Maybe if it were later in the season, I'd be be more okay with that. But, growing pains are for practice. We don't really want a guy out there learning on the job, when we've got someone with a boatload of NFL experience on hand. With this offense, we want the guy who's gonna make the fewest mistakes. No?

All I'm saying is this... be careful about hitching your wagon full of the hopes and dreams of a franchise QB and the future of the team to this guy. It could save you a lot of heartache down the road.

As far as the Fitzpatrick scenario goes... how can it possibly have zero to do with our current situation? It's practically a mirror image of what's going on now. Of course they're two different QBs. It'd be pointless (and quite impossible) to compare Hill to Hill and Davis to Davis. Wouldn't it?

 

[Jermaine133]

I think the issue with the LB core is that there is no solid depth. We have 2 good LB's in JL and Ogletree, however outside of those 2 the rest are practice squad caliber at best. Ray Ray should not be on any football field other than a practice, same thing with Bates. Too bad there aren't any quality FA LBs out there.

 

[SJ76]

Eh... I don't really see it. Yeah, the season isn't going all that swimmingly,
but being only week 3, I don't think we're in "playing to develop" mode just
yet. I think if we're looking at trying to salvage things, Hill is our best
option. Besides, Davis been with the team for 2 years now. I don't see anything
special about him. If we haven't seen it by now, I doubt we ever will.

How many games has Austin Davis started in 2 years? LMAO

 

[SJ76]

And to think people didn't like this pick in the beginning

Most people I know had TJ going in the draft before he did. So when we got him where we did and the fact that we needed a safety, And he was big - was pretty good. I think about everyone liked this pick or at least they were not super pissed about it.

The defensive players we have drafted have been pretty good overall. Offense? Well look at the last 2 top 10 picks and you tell me...

 

[Vitamike]

Look, Vita... don't get me wrong here. I am not "anti-Davis". If Fisher sees fit to start him despite Hill's availability, then so be it. To me, that would mean that he sees something in Davis that I don't and I trust that. (Although, it does beg the question, if he goes with Davis, is it still because of something he's "not looking at" regarding Hill, as you've implied earlier? Or does that only apply if Hill starts?)

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Austin Davis is "garbage". I just think he's exactly what his roster standing says he is. A 3rd string QB. I honestly liked what I saw out of him. But, I wasn't blown away. It's nice to know he can play like that in a pinch. But, I don't think he's the guy for full time duty. Of course, that's just my opinion. Had he thrown for 300+ and a couple TDs, even in a loss, I might be as enamored as everybody else seems to be. Simply managing to "not lose"... not so much. Granted, If he were the only option, I'd feel somewhat comfortable about him taking the reins after his performance last weekend.

We'll see how he does against Dallas. Far as I know, he's going to get the starting nod and I'm cool with that. I hope I'm dead wrong and he shines (like, REALLY shines. Not just get by). I'll even clean a great big platter for a heaping helping of the best tasting crow I've ever tasted.

People are talking like the mere thought of starting Hill again is absurd. I think some fans are so desperate for a win that they're losing sight of the big picture. That's when you start to see comments blindly comparing Davis' performance to that of a Pro Bowler. To me, desperately clinging to a 3rd string QB this early on is akin to throwing in the towel on the season. It's basically saying "Well... we're done. May as well develop some talent and evaluate for 2015.". Maybe if it were later in the season, I'd be be more okay with that. But, growing pains are for practice. We don't really want a guy out there learning on the job, when we've got someone with a boatload of NFL experience on hand. With this offense, we want the guy who's gonna make the fewest mistakes. No?

All I'm saying is this... be careful about hitching your wagon full of the hopes and dreams of a franchise QB and the future of the team to this guy. It could save you a lot of heartache down the road.

As far as the Fitzpatrick scenario goes... how can it possibly have zero to do with our current situation? It's practically a mirror image of what's going on now. Of course they're two different QBs. It'd be pointless (and quite impossible) to compare Hill to Hill and Davis to Davis. Wouldn't it?

Caynine, maybe you've seen some of my other posts regarding Hill and Fisher. Like you and much for the same reasons, I'm one of the the few here who puts trust in Fisher no matter who starts. I'm not 'anti-Hill' either as much as you are not 'anti-Davis'. The difference, I don't see too much separation between the two of them EXCEPT Davis has upside as there 'could be' untold potential whereas Hill's NFL story has pretty much been told as a Career backup.

As far as the 'not looking at' comment. It refers to the two 3rd down conversion Davis made to complete the game winning drive in that game last week. I think that matters in the larger scope. Admittedly, that comment was more for you than Fisher however it did make me wonder at the time I posted it, if Fisher discounted that drive and those conversion in crunch time too when he commented about who the 'starter' would be going forward given good health of both players.

We should go with the hot hand, no? (And whether it's a 4 qtr comeback drive or 300 yards and few TD's, both should be viewed IMO as 'THE' hot hand...

As far as Dallas goes, a second road game in as many NFL starts may show up before the game is over. Like you, I hope Davis surprises us all and has a game for all the talking heads to turn and talk about.

Of course, considering what I've just wrote, I don't think Hill starting is absurd. I've even suggested, if you didn't notice, that Hill gives us the best possible chance to win today or 'this week, whatever week it is but that is as the 'BACKUP QB'.

I guess my point here is...We don't have a starting QB but we do have a backup (Hill). So why put the backup in a starting role if that is who he is when we brought him in and the 3rd stringer on the roster knows the playbook, can 'develop' chemistry with the starters as a Starter and has the 'potential' to be something much more than he currently is? I don''t see Hill with anymore 'potential' than he has already demonstrated.

These 'developments' aren't growing pains however opportunity for Davis to find his place 'as a Starter' with the Starters, rather than the 'with' the Scout team.

BTW - my wagons aren't hitched to any QB in this roster, much as yours but if we are looking at one of the two options we currently have on the roster we ACTUALLY have a viable future with Austin and maybe no more than a fair season with our backup Hill running the season....

Last, your Fitz scenario has no relevance because it's two different QB's and two different eras or rather scenarios. They have as much relevance to the current QB's as the Olines, the defenses, coaches and/or schedules to the onese we have today...

There is just too much to equate and try to quantify, to make a good base line for comparison to our current situation.

 

[Caynine29]

How many games has Austin Davis started in 2 years? LMAO

Yeah... my point, exactly.

 

[Caynine29]

Caynine, maybe you've seen some of my other posts regarding Hill and Fisher. Like you and much for the same reasons, I'm one of the the few here who puts trust in Fisher no matter who starts. I'm not 'anti-Hill' either as much as you are not 'anti-Davis'. The difference, I don't see too much separation between the two of them EXCEPT Davis has upside as there 'could be' untold potential whereas Hill's NFL story has pretty much been told as a Career backup.

As far as the 'not looking at' comment. It refers to the two 3rd down conversion Davis made to complete the game winning drive in that game last week. I think that matters in the larger scope. Admittedly, that comment was more for you than Fisher however it did make me wonder at the time I posted it, if Fisher discounted that drive and those conversion in crunch time too when he commented about who the 'starter' would be going forward given good health of both players.

We should go with the hot hand, no? (And whether it's a 4 qtr comeback drive or 300 yards and few TD's, both should be viewed IMO as 'THE' hot hand...

As far as Dallas goes, a second road game in as many NFL starts may show up before the game is over. Like you, I hope Davis surprises us all and has a game for all the talking heads to turn and talk about.

Of course, considering what I've just wrote, I don't think Hill starting is absurd. I've even suggested, if you didn't notice, that Hill gives us the best possible chance to win today or 'this week, whatever week it is but that is as the 'BACKUP QB'.

I guess my point here is...We don't have a starting QB but we do have a backup (Hill). So why put the backup in a starting role if that is who he is when we brought him in and the 3rd stringer on the roster knows the playbook, can 'develop' chemistry with the starters as a Starter and has the 'potential' to be something much more than he currently is? I don''t see Hill with anymore 'potential' than he has already demonstrated.

These 'developments' aren't growing pains however opportunity for Davis to find his place 'as a Starter' with the Starters, rather than the 'with' the Scout team.

BTW - my wagons aren't hitched to any QB in this roster, much as yours but if we are looking at one of the two options we currently have on the roster we ACTUALLY have a viable future with Austin and maybe no more than a fair season with our backup Hill running the season....

Last, your Fitz scenario has no relevance because it's two different QB's and two different eras or rather scenarios. They have as much relevance to the current QB's as the Olines, the defenses, coaches and/or schedules to the onese we have today...

There is just too much to equate and try to quantify, to make a good base line for comparison to our current situation.

I can dig that point of view, Vita. Well, except for two things. #1. Personally, I don't think the "future" of this team, at QB, is currently on the roster. I certainly don't believe it's Shaun Hill. #2. I still think the Fitzpatrick scenario is 100% relevant in a conversation, not about the personnel itself, but, rather, about the decision to start the "hot hand" (Or, at least the very warm hand) of Austin Davis.

I will say this, though... I just listened to the Austin Davis interview on 101 Sports' "Jeff Fisher Show"... and I really liked what I heard from him and how he expresssed himself. Actually may have inspired a LITTLE bit more confidence in him. He "sounds" like a guy who gets it. Like someone who's adjusting to the pro game pretty quickly and he really seems to have a veteran's attitude. I just hope the talk translates.

Like I've said from the beginning... after Dallas this week, I'm hoping to have a huge helping of crow. And I'll gladly wolf it down with THE BIGGEST smile on my face.

 

[Clayton]

I'm not ready to fully judge Davis either way until the 2nd time he plays SF, the 2nd time he plays Seattle, the 2nd time he plays Arizona. Those are 3 very different defenses that are all near the top of the league.

Take all 6 games, throw out the best one and throw out the worst one and thats what we need to know about Austin Davis

 

[SJ76]

Yeah... my point, exactly.




Not sure what your point is..? You said we haven't seen "IT" from him yet... Yet he hasn't started but 1 time and WON... SO.... we don't really know. But from we have seen, he managed a game and came from behind to win the game.



STOP TEETER TAWTER'N!!

 

[SJ76]

I'm not ready to fully judge Davis either way until the 2nd time he plays SF, the 2nd time he plays Seattle, the 2nd time he plays Arizona. Those are 3 very different defenses that are all near the top of the league.

Take all 6 games, throw out the best one and throw out the worst one and thats what we need to know about Austin Davis




Clayton you are either in sales or an accountant. I like it

 

[Caynine29]

Yeah... my point, exactly.




Not sure what your point is..? You said we haven't seen "IT" from him yet... Yet he hasn't started but 1 time and WON... SO.... we don't really know. But from we have seen, he managed a game and came from behind to win the game.



STOP TEETER TAWTER'N!!

Lol. No "tawter'n" here, SJ. My point is, Hill is the one with NFL game time experience. And yes, I'm aware Davis has a whole 6 quarters of it now (granted 4 of them were against the worst team in the league. *Atlanta is up 35-0 on them at halftime as we speak). He's the one that's going to make fewer mistakes, which is exactly what we need at this point. Once we've conceded the season, then you bring in the developmental guys to practice on Sundays.

Just because I'll support Davis when he starts this week (as we all should) doesn't mean I've backed off my stance one bit. I still believe that a healthy Shaun Hill gives us the best chance to win games. If he's not healthy... then hey... it's "next man up".

All I'm saying is, while everybody else seems to be sky-high on the guy... I'm just not sold on him yet.

 

[BOSS429Mustang]

Man, Atlanta is crushing TB 56-0, while the Rams managed to beat them by a single point, and were lucky to do it. Let's not kid ourselves. Whoever starts for the Rams at QB, this is still a bad team. It's early, but every indication is that we are not even going to sniff the same record as last season--not even close.

 

[Retroram52]

If you go to another thread where we discussed the won-loss record of the Rams the last 10 years, after we had a 7-win season, we followed it up twice with a 2-14 season. Last year we won 7 games. Guess what that makes this year's record if you put any stock in statistical patterns as predictors of future events?

 

[shopson67]

Sure, Atlanta was great tonight, but was beat handily at the Bengals last week. They beat the Saints (at Atlanta), but so did the Browns (at Cleveland). Bucs lost two close games at home, and got curb-stomped on the road in a short week (probably the worst situation possible in an NFL schedule).

I think we already knew the Bucs weren't very good, but I doubt the Rams lose as badly against the Falcons as the Bucs did tonight.

 

[Caynine29]

Sure, Atlanta was great tonight, but was beat handily at the Bengals last week. They beat the Saints (at Atlanta), but so did the Browns (at Cleveland). Bucs lost two close games at home, and got curb-stomped on the road in a short week (probably the worst situation possible in an NFL schedule).

I think we already knew the Bucs weren't very good, but I doubt the Rams lose as badly against the Falcons as the Bucs did tonight.

That's true, Shopson. But don't forget, while we were squeaking by Tampa Bay... the Vikings, who just waxed us in our own house a week ago, were getting a 30-7 face punching at the hands of the Patriots.

 

[Vitamike]

If you go to another thread where we discussed the won-loss record of the Rams the last 10 years, after we had a 7-win season, we followed it up twice with a 2-14 season. Last year we won 7 games. Guess what that makes this year's record if you put any stock in statistical patterns as predictors of future events?

Retro, IMO, the NFL parity busts the year in, year out win/loss statistical patterns. I really don't put a whole lot of stock into those type of patterns unless I was trying to bust on a rival team's poster or something.