Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

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


Recommended Posts

I have learned a bit about Will Hill and his days from college thanks to reddit.

 

He had quite the colorful Twitter account. Of course, that kind of stuff has gone by the wayside since he began his NFL career.

 

This kid has talent and he needs someone to nurture him. I don't see this guy ever giving up his drug habit so... if we did try to pick him up... he wouldn't be getting another contract down the road.

 

Signing this guy would most likely be a "use him up before we lose him" kind of signing unless he really cleans up his act. Having said that...the Colts have every right to pass by this guy.

 

Given the circumstances though... if the Colts want to nab him up for the summer as insurance... his contract is right up our alley.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not gonna happen. 

 

Remember John Boyett? 

Image-9-2-13-at-5.25-PM.png

 

If we got rid of him for disorderly public intoxication and resisting law enforcement, we aren't hiring someone who can't make a full season because of "second hand smoke".  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna happen.

Remember John Boyett?

%7Boption%7D

If we got rid of him for disorderly public intoxication and resisting law enforcement, we aren't hiring someone who can't make a full season because of "second hand smoke".

Completely different situations. Boyett made a fool of himself and dragged the Colts into it with his infamous line "You can't arrest me I'm a Colt". Will Hill is a "dummy", as Superman said, but that's his only crime. He would be low risk, high reward for us and even if it's a one year rental he can be a hell of a one year rental.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely different situations. Boyett made a fool of himself and dragged the Colts into it with his infamous line "You can't arrest me I'm a Colt". Will Hill is a "dummy", as Superman said, but that's his only crime. He would be low risk, high reward for us and even if it's a one year rental he can be a hell of a one year rental.

The NFL doesn't suspend players for 6 games for being dumb, so that's not his only crime.  Never have and never will 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL doesn't suspend players for 6 games for being dumb, so that's not his only crime. Never have and never will

Excuse me. He did drugs. A non-violent crime that only hurts himself. Aka, he's a dummy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.  The Colts already have enough players that have "character concerns" and they are only one or two players away from becoming the Bengals 2.0.

 

That's a stretch. 

 

I get the concern, but the only other players I can think of with anything resembling character concerns are LaVon Brazill, Da'Rick Rogers and Loucheiz Purifoy. I doubt that more than one of them even makes the roster. Concern about being compared to the Bengals is overblown at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

The fact that the Giants, the team that knows him best,  cut him,  doesn't concern you at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are excused. I will admit he's a dummy but that is not his only problem.

Right, I understand and I'm not advocating we sign him to a huge contract. I think it would be worth it to take him for a 1 or 2 year cheap rental and then reevaluate the situation from there.

I just really do not like our safety situation. I feel we have Landry and then a Melvin Bullitt-esque safety combo and that worries me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a stretch.

I get the concern, but the only other players I can think of with anything resembling character concerns are LaVon Brazill, Da'Rick Rogers and Loucheiz Purifoy. I doubt that more than one of them even makes the roster. Concern about being compared to the Bengals is overblown at this point.

Also, Montori Hughes and Walden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a stretch. 

 

I get the concern, but the only other players I can think of with anything resembling character concerns are LaVon Brazill, Da'Rick Rogers and Loucheiz Purifoy. I doubt that more than one of them even makes the roster. Concern about being compared to the Bengals is overblown at this point.

Those plus the two players they drafted...Jackson and Newsome.  Those I don't mind so much because I do believe people should have the right to prove they have changed, still it seems to becoming a trend and hopefully Grigs learns his lesson like Polian did when he tried to bring in King and Wooten. 

 

So maybe a bit premature but the trend is starting to show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the Giants, the team that knows him best,  cut him,  doesn't concern you at all?

 

Sure it does. There's plenty of reason to pass on him. I'm fine with that decision.

 

But based on reports from when Hill's failed drug test was originally reported, the Giants were more upset than anything. They evidently gave him a lot of support, and he still messed up. So they gave up on him. That's reason enough to steer clear. But he's really talented, so the idea is intriguing.

 

So my perspective is that bringing him in is very low risk. It doesn't affect your roster building process. It doesn't cost you a draft pick or anything of value in a trade. It doesn't cost you any money until Week 6. It creates more competition at safety through the offseason and preseason. If you look at him as a potential contributor in the short term, not someone you're going to consider as the backbone of your secondary, then he's potentially giving you 10 weeks of depth and maybe starting caliber play at a position that's possibly your weakest spot on the team.

 

Some people you marry. Others you just date for a little while, but you never see yourself settling down with them. The most commitment you make is to share your Netflix password. I look at Will Hill as someone you date for a while, a short term rental. If it goes well in 2014, you can give him your Netflix password in 2015, by hitting him with an RFA tender. And if he steps out of line at all, you break up with him, with little to no residual consequences. If he stays clean, maybe you've added a valuable player to your roster. If not? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I understand and I'm not advocating we sign him to a huge contract. I think it would be worth it to take him for a 1 or 2 year cheap rental and then reevaluate the situation from there.

I just really do not like our safety situation. I feel we have Landry and then a Melvin Bullitt-esque safety combo and that worries me.

Other than it tells the other safeties on the team, the ones that are there busting their behinds in the weight room and OTAs, that the team does not think they are good enough and they will look at anyone, no matter how dummy or how many league rules they violate to try and replace them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Montori Hughes and Walden.

 

Ehh... Montori Hughes had some issues, but they're well in the past. He stayed out of trouble for two years at Tennessee-Martin, and has been fine for three years now. 

 

Erik Walden's arrest was three years ago, as well. And very inconclusive, at the end of it all. His suspension last year probably doesn't help.

 

Don't mean to downplay any of these issues. Just that I don't think our roster has a lot of guys on it that are known for run-ins with the law, drug issues, etc. Not to the point that adding Will Hill would make us comparable to the Bengals from a few years ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it does. There's plenty of reason to pass on him. I'm fine with that decision.

 

But based on reports from when Hill's failed drug test was originally reported, the Giants were more upset than anything. They evidently gave him a lot of support, and he still messed up. So they gave up on him. That's reason enough to steer clear. But he's really talented, so the idea is intriguing.

 

So my perspective is that bringing him in is very low risk. It doesn't affect your roster building process. It doesn't cost you a draft pick or anything of value in a trade. It doesn't cost you any money until Week 6. It creates more competition at safety through the offseason and preseason. If you look at him as a potential contributor in the short term, not someone you're going to consider as the backbone of your secondary, then he's potentially giving you 10 weeks of depth and maybe starting caliber play at a position that's possibly your weakest spot on the team.

 

Some people you marry. Others you just date for a little while, but you never see yourself settling down with them. The most commitment you make is to share your Netflix password. I look at Will Hill as someone you date for a while, a short term rental. If it goes well in 2014, you can give him your Netflix password in 2015, by hitting him with an RFA tender. And if he steps out of line at all, you break up with him, with little to no residual consequences. If he stays clean, maybe you've added a valuable player to your roster. If not? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

But is the girl you're dating (that you're thinking may be the one to settle down with) going to sit by idly as you just date this other girl for a while to see if she proves better?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those plus the two players they drafted...Jackson and Newsome.  Those I don't mind so much because I do believe people should have the right to prove they have changed, still it seems to becoming a trend and hopefully Grigs learns his lesson like Polian did when he tried to bring in King and Wooten. 

 

So maybe a bit premature but the trend is starting to show.

 

Fair enough. I don't think the Colts would be compared to the Bengals, or any other team that has had a bunch of legal issues.

 

I do think the aesthetics would be tricky, with Irsay's situation and all. But I think it comes down to it being a low risk addition, after a pretty big statement was made by both the NFL and the Giants. It would be very black and white, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than it tells the other safeties on the team, the ones that are there busting their behinds in the weight room and OTAs, that the team does not think they are good enough and they will look at anyone, no matter how dummy or how many league rules they violate to try and replace them.

That's the nature of the business. You can't be worried about signing a guy who could be a big improvement because it might upset your current starter. It should serve as extra motivation for these hypercompetive athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than it tells the other safeties on the team, the ones that are there busting their behinds in the weight room and OTAs, that the team does not think they are good enough and they will look at anyone, no matter how dummy or how many league rules they violate to try and replace them.

 

 

But is the girl you're dating (that you're thinking may be the one to settle down with) going to sit by idly as you just date this other girl for a while to see if she proves better?

 

I don't think that fits. You're "dating" several girls. We have 7 safeties on the roster right now, and another 10 corners. There's competition all over the roster. Will Hill wouldn't be guaranteed a roster spot; he's not even guaranteed any money. He's completely out of the picture for the first 6-7 weeks of the season, leaving whatever DBs do make the final roster plenty of opportunities to stake their claim to spots ahead of him. If we had a bunch of stars at safety through the first 6 weeks, we could simply waive Hill, and no one's feelings get hurt.

 

But that's not really the concern. Either you're good enough or you're not. Especially through preseason and training camp. Hill is a really good player, but he'd still have to a) stay out of trouble, and b) perform on the field. If he outplays someone else and takes their spot, then that someone else really has no one to blame. You build your team by adding talent. You don't back away from talented players because you don't want to hurt the feelings of the players already on the roster.

 

If you want to back away from Will Hill because he's a dummy, then that's a different story. But I'm not particularly too concerned with upsetting the other safeties on the roster. They'll get their shot, with Hill here or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to back away from Will Hill because he's a dummy, then that's a different story. But I'm not particularly too concerned with upsetting the other safeties on the roster. They'll get their shot, with Hill here or not.

I disagree.  The only reason, IMO, a team would sign a guy who will be suspended fir the first 6 games of the season is for him to step as the starter when the suspension lifts.  And that is the only type of team Hill would sign with... why waste a chance to be in training camp with team if all they want to do is kick the tires so to speak.  Now, I agree, a team will not come out and say that he is guaranteed the starting spot but that will be the deal that is worked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the nature of the business. You can't be worried about signing a guy who could be a big improvement because it might upset your current starter. It should serve as extra motivation for these hypercompetive athletes.

I agree to a point... signing someone to come in and compete is different though than signing a suspended player who has already proven he cannot do what is necessary to stay on the field.

 

And, like any business, you have to look at the effect the hire has on your current personnel, especially when that personnel is what makes or breaks your business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  The only reason, IMO, a team would sign a guy who will be suspended fir the first 6 games of the season is for him to step as the starter when the suspension lifts.  And that is the only type of team Hill would sign with... why waste a chance to be in training camp with team if all they want to do is kick the tires so to speak.  Now, I agree, a team will not come out and say that he is guaranteed the starting spot but that will be the deal that is worked out.

 

Will Hill is on waivers. Unless/until he clears waivers, it's not up to him to choose who he wants to play for. 

 

And I don't think any team would determine that one player would be their starter unconditionally, not in these circumstances. If someone plays at a high level through preseason and the first six weeks of the regular season, I don't think any coaching staff would bench him for a player who didn't show himself to be better in preseason. Hill would still have to earn his way on to the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a stretch.

I get the concern, but the only other players I can think of with anything resembling character concerns are LaVon Brazill, Da'Rick Rogers and Loucheiz Purifoy. I doubt that more than one of them even makes the roster. Concern about being compared to the Bengals is overblown at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogers passed like 10 UA's at Tenn Tech as far as I know he has had no other drug problems. Brazil did the crime took responsibility did the time no other problems.

Purifoy he's a different story doing more than weed not going to go any farther. I've said what I have to say.

Will Hill it's just pot NFL is going to look at those rules as the country is changing its laws no risk if he doesn't count against the 53 man roster

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.

I just can't help but to think of Fred Sanford saying..."Will, You big Dummy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point... signing someone to come in and compete is different though than signing a suspended player who has already proven he cannot do what is necessary to stay on the field.

And, like any business, you have to look at the effect the hire has on your current personnel, especially when that personnel is what makes or breaks your business.

I still believe if you think he's a big upgrade (I do) you pull the trigger. The signing might upset the safeties competing for the starting spot at first but I think if they're worth a % they'll go out there and try to prove the front office wrong for making such a signing. If they crumble then they're not worth a crap anyway.

These are grown men playing in the NFL, not exactly a business known for its job security. They should understand that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogers passed like 10 UA's at Tenn Tech as far as I know he has had no other drug problems. Brazil did the crime took responsibility did the time no other problems.

Purifoy he's a different story doing more than weed not going to go any farther. I've said what I have to say.

Will Hill it's just pot NFL is going to look at those rules as the country is changing its laws no risk if he doesn't count against the 53 man roster

 

Until the NFL changes its rules, getting suspended for marijuana is stupid, and reflects poorly on your judgment/decision making. Getting suspended twice for marijuana is worse. Getting suspended twice for marijuana after you've already been suspended for PEDs (meaning you're getting tested more often than most NFL players) is even worse.

 

Rogers hasn't been in trouble recently, but he could be in the substance abuse program without us knowing. The Bills released him without specifying exactly why. Don't know if there's a connection, but it's not good that he was given a chance after not being drafted, and didn't make it out of preseason. But there's no evidence that he's had any issues since Tennessee Tech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the NFL changes its rules, getting suspended for marijuana is stupid, and reflects poorly on your judgment/decision making. Getting suspended twice for marijuana is worse. Getting suspended twice for marijuana after you've already been suspended for PEDs (meaning you're getting tested more often than most NFL players) is even worse.

 

Rogers hasn't been in trouble recently, but he could be in the substance abuse program without us knowing. The Bills released him without specifying exactly why. Don't know if there's a connection, but it's not good that he was given a chance after not being drafted, and didn't make it out of preseason. But there's no evidence that he's had any issues since Tennessee Tech.

 

Until the NFL changes its rules, getting suspended for marijuana is stupid, and reflects poorly on your judgment/decision making. Getting suspended twice for marijuana is worse. Getting suspended twice for marijuana after you've already been suspended for PEDs (meaning you're getting tested more often than most NFL players) is even worse.

 

Rogers hasn't been in trouble recently, but he could be in the substance abuse program without us knowing. The Bills released him without specifying exactly why. Don't know if there's a connection, but it's not good that he was given a chance after not being drafted, and didn't make it out of preseason. But there's no evidence that he's had any issues since Tennessee Tech.

You lost me who has been suspended for PED's and weed I am guessing Hill? If that is the case he may be more trouble than he is worth if he hasn't turned it around by now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost me who has been suspended for PED's and weed I am guessing Hill? If that is the case he may be more trouble than he is worth if he hasn't turned it around by now....

 

Yeah, Will Hill. Was suspended four games in 2012 for PEDs (he says it was Adderall). Suspended another four games in 2013 for a substance abuse violation. Now this six game suspension for substance abuse.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/20/giants-will-hill-suspended-again/

 

What's unclear to me is how many failed substance abuse tests he's had. Normally, your first failed test for substance abuse is a warning, no suspension. But with him already being in the drug program, he may not have received a warning. I'm not sure how that works. But this could potentially be his 4th failed test -- one for PEDs, and three for substance abuse.

 

So his example is not one that I think we can blame the NFL's overly strict substance abuse policy for. He's had plenty of interaction with his team and with substance abuse and PED counselors, and still keeps getting caught up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this before, but the basis of his appeal was that he tested positive because of secondhand smoke. 

 

Ray-Liotta-Laughing-In-Goodfellas-Gif.gi

 

I think he's a really good player, and I think acquiring him could work. But there are plenty of reasons for the Colts -- and any team, really -- to pass on this guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this before, but the basis of his appeal was that he tested positive because of secondhand smoke. 

 

Ray-Liotta-Laughing-In-Goodfellas-Gif.gi

 

I think he's a really good player, and I think acquiring him could work. But there are plenty of reasons for the Colts -- and any team, really -- to pass on this guy.

138160377075.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Will Hill. Was suspended four games in 2012 for PEDs (he says it was Adderall). Suspended another four games in 2013 for a substance abuse violation. Now this six game suspension for substance abuse.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/20/giants-will-hill-suspended-again/

 

What's unclear to me is how many failed substance abuse tests he's had. Normally, your first failed test for substance abuse is a warning, no suspension. But with him already being in the drug program, he may not have received a warning. I'm not sure how that works. But this could potentially be his 4th failed test -- one for PEDs, and three for substance abuse.

 

So his example is not one that I think we can blame the NFL's overly strict substance abuse policy for. He's had plenty of interaction with his team and with substance abuse and PED counselors, and still keeps getting caught up.

Not sure what our interest in Hill would be then doesn't sound like he will be in the league much longer Indiana tax payers will probably just end up paying his room and board should we sign him I see incarceration in his future

Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely different situations. Boyett made a fool of himself and dragged the Colts into it with his infamous line "You can't arrest me I'm a Colt". Will Hill is a "dummy", as Superman said, but that's his only crime. He would be low risk, high reward for us and even if it's a one year rental he can be a hell of a one year rental.

 

I realize that they are different situations, but the Grigson regime let go their 6th round pick who couldn't play nice with others, so I don't see at all how they would bring in someone who was a "dummy" 3 years in a row. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that they are different situations, but the Grigson regime let go their 6th round pick who couldn't play nice with others, so I don't see at all how they would bring in someone who was a "dummy" 3 years in a row.

Cutting a 6th round pick is little more shocking than cutting a UDFA, especially when that 6th round pick embarrasses the organization before stepping on the field. The Colts have signed multiple players with troubled past since the Boyett incident and Will Hill is a low risk, high reward player at possibly our biggest position of need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone see in this guy?

They don't "see" anything in him.  PFF has him ranked high so he must be a good safety.  

 

Personally, I like football analytics but, IMO, PFF has never proven very accurate in it's player evaluations.

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...