Hill to start Sunday

I don’t think there was a real choice in regarding benching Davis. I think he hit a wall mentally and emotionally and was not going to get any better. Standing and watching for a while is probably the best thing for him.

Grits

Who has rewind?

Maybe, if you can, go back and watch the first half of the Vikes game again.

.

InvaderRam wrote:

what happens if the rams still lose with hill at qb?

This is the wrong question to ask.

There are no guarantees. We might lose with Hill. Hill might play poorly. Who knows?

Coaching decisions must be judged on what is known BEFORE the event. What do we know?

We know who Davis is. Really, we do. He is, as ZN says, an emotional guy who blows hot and cold, a pop-gun armed passer who can only throw the high ball, and a guy who panics and collapses into disaster mode. He hasn’t troubled a defense in weeks. We won the SF game, but not because of Davis, who sucked.

Going into this week, most people expected AZ to shut Davis down. They did. He made like 3 good passes all day and then melted down. THIS WAS COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE KNOWING WHAT WE KNEW BEFORE THE GAME!

We also know that Hill has a track record of pretty good, fairly sophisticated QBing in this league. He is no star. But he is solid and can be productive. He has DONE IT over a range of years.

We don’t know if his age will be an issue. We don’t know if he will be rusty. We don’t know whether we can win even if he plays better than Davis has. Hill could have a great day and not be within 15 points of Manning.

The point is whether a coach makes the decision that gives his team the best chance of winning. For weeks now, it has been clear that Davis has actually reduced our chances of winning. Hill at least gives us a chance of doing better.

We don’t have to win the game to prove the logic of the switch to be correct. Hell, even if Hill tanks, it would still have been worth it to take the chance. Davis will NOT get it done. Hill might. I’ll take Hill.

I don’t like Davis throwing with Ware and Miller in his face at all.

Hill might not fare much better but at least he won’t soil his pants at the first sign of pressure.

Dak wrote:

Davis knows he wasn’t playing well, and any QB not playing well knows he is in jeopardy of being replaced. Fisher should have replaced Davis, and he should have done it earlier.

It is true…or rather I believe…that if they had replaced him a game sooner, Rams woulda won the ARZ game.

But…though he didn’t play well in the SF game…they won that one, so, I don’t think Fisher would have replaced him at that point.

I still wish they had done it then anyway. Shrug.

zn wrote:

Interesting thing about Hill from the Jeff Fisher Show: http://theramshuddle.com/topic/jeff-fisher-show-november-17/ . Fisher of course praises the poise, consistency, quick decisions. But, Hill helped a lot in the running game by audibling out of bad run calls to the pass, and audibling into good run calls out of the pass. Fisher says a lot of what made the run game work was because of Hill doing that.

I saw that. Interesting stuff.

You’re probably right about Fisher not changing his QB because they won the SF game. I think that’s the wrong way to think. I mean, that game was a toss-up at the end there, and the Rams were lucky with that fumble at the goal line. Hell, they could have just as easily ruled that a TD. So, how does that affect whether Austin Davis should get another chance? Strange.