Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Will Hill Is now available... should we try to get him? (merge)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/11020969/new-york-giants-waive-suspended-safety-hill

 

The NFL announced Friday that Hill would be suspended for the first six games of the 2014 season due to his latest violation of the league's substance abuse policy. Hill also missed the first four games of the 2013 season and four games during the 2012 season for drug violations.

 

 

Yes, I would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading that, it seems as if this is Hill's 3rd time he's lost a large chunk of the season due to drugs.

 

4 games in 2012

4 games in 2013

6 games in 2014

 

How is this guy not fully suspended for a year?

 

In the past, you have been reluctant to take on anyone who might wind up suspended again for drug use.

 

What's different about this guy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not intrigued at all on the posibility of a short term loaner on him?

 

Yes, he is suspended for the beginning of the season but, he would be great for us down the stretch/playoffs.

 

Colts could swing him a two year prove it deal seeing as a one year deal would only provide half a season's worth of effort.

 

If he isn't the right guy for us we can toss him back in the pond before Luck and the gang are due to make their big bucks in 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was going to make a thread you beat me to it ..i think we should sign him 

He was PFF's #2 ranked safety last year...

 

I think his suspension could be a blessing in disguise. I'd rather have him do his heavy lifting at the end of the season to bolster our defense going into the playoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading that, it seems as if this is Hill's 3rd time he's lost a large chunk of the season due to drugs.

 

4 games in 2012

4 games in 2013

6 games in 2014

 

How is this guy not fully suspended for a year?

 

In the past, you have been reluctant to take on anyone who might wind up suspended again for drug use.

 

What's different about this guy?

 

I think it's low risk at this point. Prior to the draft, I wouldn't have touched him, for fear it would influence other roster decisions. But picking him up now, he'd be the 90th man. He's a knucklehead, and maybe he wouldn't display the right attitude or perform well in preseason, and then he's cut. But I think the front office has a roster they like right now, with potential depth in the secondary, and that means we wouldn't be projecting Hill into a starting role, nor would we decide not to acquire another safety prospect simply because we already have Hill on the team. It's just a slightly different dynamic.

 

And the reason he's not suspended for a year is because he's had one PED suspension, and two substance suspensions. Two separate policies. 

 

I still would have him on a short leash, but he's a talented player, and he would create competition in preseason and potentially come back from his suspension and contribute. Costs the team less than $400k in cap space (prorated salary after his six game suspension), and we'd still have RFA rights after 2014. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not intrigued at all on the posibility of a short term loaner on him?

 

Yes, he is suspended for the beginning of the season but, he would be great for us down the stretch/playoffs.

 

Colts could swing him a two year prove it deal seeing as a one year deal would only provide half a season's worth of effort.

 

If he isn't the right guy for us we can toss him back in the pond before Luck and the gang are due to make their big bucks in 2016.

 

I don't think he'll clear waivers. If you want him, you have to put in a claim, then hope no one with a higher claim gets him.

 

Then you assume his current contract, which comes with RFA rights in 2015. So you do have him for two years, if you want him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he'll clear waivers. If you want him, you have to put in a claim, then hope no one with a higher claim gets him.

 

Then you assume his current contract, which comes with RFA rights in 2015. So you do have him for two years, if you want him.

He is not a vested veteran yet? When does a player become a vested veteran?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not intrigued at all on the posibility of a short term loaner on him?

 

Yes, he is suspended for the beginning of the season but, he would be great for us down the stretch/playoffs.

 

Colts could swing him a two year prove it deal seeing as a one year deal would only provide half a season's worth of effort.

 

If he isn't the right guy for us we can toss him back in the pond before Luck and the gang are due to make their big bucks in 2016.

Low risk, but we only have 90 roster spots.  We'd essentially be handing him a roster spot without even having to prove it, really.  I don't think he's practice squad eligible, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not a vested veteran yet? When does a player become a vested veteran?

 

Once he begins his fourth season. I'm not sure if he achieves that status in the offseason, or if it starts once the regular season begins. Either way, Hill is only two years in, and this would be his third year. So he's not a vested veteran yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do it. I think it's pretty much a guarantee that either Howell or Landry will be injured at some point, and I'd really rather not see Sergio Brown starting for us. It's not like Howell/Landry are even sure things as far as talent anyway. Please bring the guy in. By week 7 we may really need to try something else at safety, and while he's probably one of the dumbest guys in the league, he is a legit top 5 safety in the game. If he messes up again who cares? None of his contract will be guaranteed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys wanna sign someone we won't have until week 7?

Are we just gonna sign suspended players to keep Robert Mathis company on the sidelines until he comes back?

 

You bring up a good point. We have one player already sitting out the first month. Hill would represent another, and he'd be out through six weeks. Of course, both can participate in the preseason, and neither counts against the 53 man roster. So it doesn't really cost you roster spots at any point.

 

As a matter of fact, Mathis being out is going to create a de facto 54th spot for someone. A player who would normally not make the final roster will, because Mathis will be out. And he'll have an extra month to take someone else's job. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Low risk, but we only have 90 roster spots.  We'd essentially be handing him a roster spot without even having to prove it, really.  I don't think he's practice squad eligible, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

He is not PS eligible, but that's not relevant. The PS doesn't exist until the regular season starts, at which point he goes on a reserve list during his six week suspension. Then we can activate him, or we can waive him and not pay him anything.

 

We definitely wouldn't be married to him in any way. All he'd cost us is a back-end roster spot until the regular season starts. How much would anyone really miss Josh Lenz, for instance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only for a cheap contract.

 

He's a productive player on the field, the problem is, he's never on the field. He'd only be able to play in the final 10 games (plus potential playoff games). He's a more talented player than Howell and would be an upgrade over him, but is it really worth spending on a guy who is one little thing away from a big suspension.

 

There is a lot of risk with him, so if the contract is cheap, it's worth a stab, but the Colts should not be tripping over themselves to try and get Hill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only for a cheap contract.

 

He's a productive player on the field, the problem is, he's never on the field. He'd only be able to play in the final 10 games (plus potential playoff games). He's a more talented player than Howell and would be an upgrade over him, but is it really worth spending on a guy who is one little thing away from a big suspension.

 

There is a lot of risk with him, so if the contract is cheap, it's worth a stab, but the Colts should not be tripping over themselves to try and get Hill.

 

He's on waivers. If you get him, his contract is only $370k for 2014, with RFA rights for 2015. It's less than veteran minimum, due to his suspension.

 

Edit: And none of that $370k is guaranteed. So if you decide to waive him after the season starts, even after he returns from his suspension, it doesn't cost you anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once he begins his fourth season. I'm not sure if he achieves that status in the offseason, or if it starts once the regular season begins. Either way, Hill is only two years in, and this would be his third year. So he's not a vested veteran yet.

thanks for the info. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

 

sponge_bob_knowledge_is_power.jpg?__SQUA

Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up a good point. We have one player already sitting out the first month. Hill would represent another, and he'd be out through six weeks. Of course, both can participate in the preseason, and neither counts against the 53 man roster. So it doesn't really cost you roster spots at any point.

As a matter of fact, Mathis being out is going to create a de facto 54th spot for someone. A player who would normally not make the final roster will, because Mathis will be out. And he'll have an extra month to take someone else's job.

I mean if the guy can produce here, then I'll take him but I just thought these past 2 seasons would make Colts fans more appreciative of players who're available & less appreciative of players who aren't.

But if he'll make another roster spot open, that may be good for players like

Boom Herron

Sheldon Price

An extra WR

Porifoy (spellcheck)

Etc Etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's on waivers. If you get him, his contract is only $370k for 2014, with RFA rights for 2015. It's less than veteran minimum, due to his suspension.

 

Edit: And none of that $370k is guaranteed. So if you decide to waive him after the season starts, even after he returns from his suspension, it doesn't cost you anything.

 

There's great value in that contract; very little risk too. 

 

It's worth a shot at him, but they'll need to keep him in check. One little thing and he's going to get a big suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not PS eligible, but that's not relevant. The PS doesn't exist until the regular season starts, at which point he goes on a reserve list during his six week suspension. Then we can activate him, or we can waive him and not pay him anything.

 

We definitely wouldn't be married to him in any way. All he'd cost us is a back-end roster spot until the regular season starts. How much would anyone really miss Josh Lenz, for instance?

And that's the tradeoff.  I'm not really suggesting that all the guys in OTAs are better than Hill, I leave that up to management.  But I certainly understand that we only have so many roster spots available, which are valuable enough as it is.  And the rub is that we're taking a guy that may never see the field in a Colts uniform.  For whatever we might gain in signing Hill, it becomes less than what we originally had if Hill gets busted again.  Know what I mean?  And perhaps whoever would have been the 90th man over Hill may have never seen the field either.  I don't even pretend to know.  What I do know is that Hill was a UDFA, and any UDFA that we might have kept instead of signing Hill could turn out to be just as productive.  If anyone has that fortune teller's glass ball, we'd have a superbowl roster every single year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he's only going to play 10 games next season, but yes I would love for us to pick him up. We would be able to see what Howell and/or McDonald can do the first 6 games, then when Hill comes back just put the best player out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else, Hill is yet another reminder of how much talent goes undrafted and how quickly that talent can rise to become a high end starter.  Makes you ask "why not Delano or Dewey or....."

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the tradeoff.  I'm not really suggesting that all the guys in OTAs are better than Hill, I leave that up to management.  But I certainly understand that we only have so many roster spots available, which are valuable enough as it is.  And the rub is that we're taking a guy that may never see the field in a Colts uniform.  For whatever we might gain in signing Hill, it becomes less than what we originally had if Hill gets busted again.  Know what I mean?  And perhaps whoever would have been the 90th man over Hill may have never seen the field either.  I don't even pretend to know.  What I do know is that Hill was a UDFA, and any UDFA that we might have kept instead of signing Hill could turn out to be just as productive.  If anyone has that fortune teller's glass ball, we'd have a superbowl roster every single year.

 

I can't tell the future, but I feel comfortable predicting that there are 10-15 guys on the roster right now that absolutely will not make the final 53. I know everyone has a chance and all that, and Jerrell Freeman was "camp fodder," etc. But I singled out Josh Lenz for a reason; we're stacked at receiver, and there are at least two guys who contributed last year who won't make the final roster. Seth Lobato won't make the final roster. And so on... 

 

So if you lose one of those guys right now, it's okay, if you're adding a talent like Hill. IMO. Even if he never plays for us, you really didn't lose anything by making room for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else, Hill is yet another reminder of how much talent goes undrafted and how quickly that talent can rise to become a high end starter.  Makes you ask "why not Delano or Dewey or....."

 

That's very true. But I don't think the "why not" players justify holding off on adding a talented player at their positions.

 

To me, the only question with Hill is whether you think he's worth the risk, not the state of our roster right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys wanna sign someone we won't have until week 7?

Are we just gonna sign suspended players to keep Robert Mathis company on the sidelines until he comes back?

 

Low risk, high reward... i dont mind him sitting and coming back mid season to contribute. i mean look at the pats took Browner and he's gonna sit out...most importantly he comes back when they will need him most heading into the playoffs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Low risk, high reward... i dont mind him sitting and coming back mid season to contribute. i mean look at the pats took Browner and he's gonna sit out...most importantly he comes back when they will need him most heading into the playoffs

Like I said above, I don't mind it. It's just kinda weird to think we'll have someone we can't touch until week 7

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very true. But I don't think the "why not" players justify holding off on adding a talented player at their positions.

 

To me, the only question with Hill is whether you think he's worth the risk, not the state of our roster right now.

Won't get any argument from me.  The only argument against it that can be made, IMO, is that he isn't a player you can plan around in the future.  The reality is, we are good enough to win it all now - and Hill doesn't require any long term decision-making, so that argument is fully negated in my book.

 

I don't see it as him as occupying anyone else's spot right now.  Our staff has seen enough already to identify at least 1 player that has zero shot to be here at final cuts - so Hill can have his spot.  Furthermore, I see it as having 55 players on the roster to start the year. That's a real bonus given that Grigs is already content going to battle as is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said above, I don't mind it. It's just kinda weird to think we'll have someone we can't touch until week 7

 

It happens every year with players on PUP. The difference is that he's out because he's a dummy, not because he got hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It happens every year with players on PUP. The difference is that he's out because he's a dummy, not because he got hurt.

"Dummy" haha so harsh

But yeah, so do they just sit on the sidelines in street clothes or are they not even allowed at the games? Not familiar on this suspension stuff to be honest

Probably would've been a smart idea to pay attention to the Brazill suspension

Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't get any argument from me.  The only argument against it that can be me, IMO, is that he isn't a player you can plan around in the future.  The reality is, we are good enough to win it all now - and Hill doesn't require any long term decision-making, so that argument is fully negated in my book.

 

I don't see it as him as occupying anyone else's spot right now.  Our staff has seen enough already to identify at least 1 player that has zero shot to be here at final cuts - so Hill can have his spot.  Furthermore, I see it as having 55 players on the roster to start the year. That's a real bonus given that Grigs is already content going to battle as is.

 

I look at it the same way. Hill would potentially make you better in the short term, and there's no long term ramifications. You're not using a draft pick on a troubled player that might not pan out. It's just a waiver claim. There's no money involved.

 

The risk is that you plug him into the lineup, he makes you better, and then he gets busted again after you've come to rely on him. Now you've set back the development and experience of someone like Delano Howell, etc., because Hill was on the field instead of him. That's a legitimate concern.

 

I also agree that you're now looking at a cut down to 55, instead of 53. Mathis and Hill would be put on reserve lists for the duration of their suspensions, making room for two players who would normally be cut. That's two guys that you really want to put on the practice squad, but you're nervous about exposing them to waivers. It's another 4-6 weeks for those guys to earn more playing time and potentially take someone else's spot, making the team better top to bottom. It sucks to be without Mathis, but having Hill on reserve for six weeks isn't a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dummy" haha so harsh

But yeah, so do they just sit on the sidelines in street clothes or are they not even allowed at the games? Not familiar on this suspension stuff to be honest

Probably would've been a smart idea to pay attention to the Brazill suspension

 

Not allowed at the games, and not allowed to practice. But they can be in team meetings, they can lift with the team, etc. That's what Pagano said about Brazill's suspension last year: http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/991/brazill-returns-to-team-after-suspension

 

So it's basically like they're injured, except they can't come to the games.

 

Also, you have a one week exemption after the suspension is done, so you don't even have to make room for them on the active roster right away. Of course, if you use that exemption, they can't play during that week, but they can practice. So you can basically ease them in for a week, while you figure out who to cut.

 

Last thing, "dummy" isn't harsh at all. I could say much worse things about him. While I'm okay with the idea of bringing him in, it really says something about a person's thought process when they have a great opportunity like this in front of them, and they continually make bad decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not allowed at the games, and not allowed to practice. But they can be in team meetings, they can lift with the team, etc. That's what Pagano said about Brazill's suspension last year: http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/991/brazill-returns-to-team-after-suspension

So it's basically like they're injured, except they can't come to the games.

Also, you have a one week exemption after the suspension is done, so you don't even have to make room for them on the active roster right away. Of course, if you use that exemption, they can't play during that week, but they can practice. So you can basically ease them in for a week, while you figure out who to cut.

Last thing, "dummy" isn't harsh at all. I could say much worse things about him. While I'm okay with the idea of bringing him in, it really says something about a person's thought process when they have a great opportunity like this in front of them, and they continually make bad decisions.

:scoregood:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...