Wait, what? Are you implying that thew New York media is not harder on it's players or over-exploits things (whether for right or for wrong)? He didn't say anything about the New York media that isn't true and isn't already known.


I've already showed facts. Stephen Hill only had one drop in 2013. That is not a typo. One. His career drop % is better than Cecil Shorts. Yes, Stephen Hill has struggled with drops but it's not nearly on the level that the media or some of you guys seem to believe.



The fact that you are condemning his attitude for stating the widely known truth about the New York media is proof for me that you will never give the kid a fair shake. If you think he is a bad WR, fine, but when you are reaching this far to make something out of nothing then you start showing unreasonable subjectivity.

So you think Hill was released because of the local media market overstating his horrendous play? Hill has no bearing whatsoever on why his NFL career is hanging by a thread?


Are you his agent? No seriously.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Did I say that? Using a ridiculous strawman argument isn't going to work, but nice try.

 

Neither I nor Stephen Hill said that Hill has no bearing whatsoever on why his NFL career is hanging by a thread. He was simply stating something known to be true and that is that the New York media market is brutal. Stephen Hill struggled with drops, so the New York media painted him as having no ability to catch passes. If there were true, he would have had more than 1 drop last year.

 

 

Do you know anything about thew New York market? No seriously.

---

I'd wager the coaching staff knew more about Hill than the NY media.

 

And here's a hint... it was the staff, not the media, that cut Hill.

 

Let's not contort ourselves in ridiculous ways to excuse the guy.

 

Now, if there's an argument that the Jets staff could have made questionable moves and the Hill cut could be one of them... well then, that argument actually may carry some merit.

 

But the media?  Please.  Hill wasn't starting QB.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Well, we'll see how he does in Carolina....

 

The good thing is....

 

 

The Jags.....if they really still want him....CAN simply pluck Hill from their PS. Granted, I think he'd then have to stick on our active roster for the remainder of the season. 

 

If all of Lee/ Robinson/ Hurns/ and Shorts jump out to look good over the first 4 weeks or so, I'd then look to trade Shorts for a pick at that point and then sign Hill from Carolina's PS. Shorts will be less of a need with the 3 other WR contributing and developing and Hill will then cost much less going forward than Shorts will (with the impending new contract) and Hill will have the higher upside. 

---

The fact that you are condemning his attitude for stating the widely known truth about the New York media is proof for me that you will never give the kid a fair shake. If you think he is a bad WR, fine, but when you are reaching this far to make something out of nothing then you start showing unreasonable subjectivity.

If this was the first we'd heard from Hill since the cut, I'd be more understanding, but he's already (through his agent) teed off on the Jets organization for the way they handled him, and now he's blaming the media for his being cut. There's some merit to what he's said, but it's now a trend of Stephen Hill blaming everyone but Stephen Hill for the abysmal start to his career.

 

The Jags.....if they really still want him....CAN simply pluck Hill from their PS. Granted, I think he'd then have to stick on our active roster for the remainder of the season.

Three games worth of paychecks is the only guarantee. The Jags could sign him today and cut him tomorrow as long as they pay him for the next three weeks, but as some dude who works for the Packers used to say, "I wouldn't worry about that."

---

Did you guys even read the article? He isn't blaming the media for being cut. All he said was that the media exaggerated his drops. Heck, the headline of the article is:

"Stephen Hill: Media exaggerated how many passes I dropped".

 

Hill dropped ONE pass in 2013 and has a lower career drop % than Cecil Shorts. The media did exaggerate how many passes Hill dropped. That is it. That is all. Nothing more was said in the linked article.

---

Did you guys even read the article? He isn't blaming the media for being cut.

The New York media wanted me out of there.

How do you interprete that?

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Drops weren't nearly as big a problem as running consistent routes and getting open.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I did, in fact, and it reads more like this to me:

 

"I'm actually a really good player, but the media wanted everyone to believe that I was terrible. The media is the reason I got cut, not my own faults as a player."

 

This coming after his agent's comments came across as:

 

"It's everyone's fault but Stephen's that he was cut."

 

I'm ok with Hill's assertion that he only dropped one pass. What I'm not ok with is this:

 

“[T]he New York media – and honestly this is me talking – did all that...They tried their best to get me out of there.”
 

Hill was terrible in college. He's a workout warrior who got drafted based on his ability to run a convincing fly route. Maybe he's still got potential, but a wideout who can only run the fly won't get very far in the NFL. This isn't sandlot football where the QB says, "Ok, everyone go long," on every play. If he had, between this article and his agent's comments (which were clearly ok'd by Hill by virtue of the agent still having a client), acknowledged that his own shortcomings as a player--not just his drops, but his inability to run routes correctly and get open--played into the decision to cut him, it would be a different story. Instead, it's no different than any other diva wideout who's decided that it's everybody's fault but his that he was cut. I, personally, don't want that kind of attitude around the Jaguars. Let him rot for a year on a practice squad and hopefully mature some, then sign him to a minimum-salary deal in February and let him show what he can do. Don't waste a regular-season roster spot on a guy who can only run one route, can't catch the ball, can't get open, and would rather issue multiple statements blaming other people for his own failings than own up to them and prove the doubters wrong.

---

Well, we'll see how he does in Carolina....

 

The good thing is....

 

 

The Jags.....if they really still want him....CAN simply pluck Hill from their PS. Granted, I think he'd then have to stick on our active roster for the remainder of the season. 

 

If all of Lee/ Robinson/ Hurns/ and Shorts jump out to look good over the first 4 weeks or so, I'd then look to trade Shorts for a pick at that point and then sign Hill from Carolina's PS. Shorts will be less of a need with the 3 other WR contributing and developing and Hill will then cost much less going forward than Shorts will (with the impending new contract) and Hill will have the higher upside. 

It's okay to let it go.  If they wanted him, they would have pursued him like all those other teams you said were making offers. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 Stephen Hill struggled with drops, so the New York media painted him as having no ability to catch passes. If there were true, he would have had more than 1 drop last year.

I think it was more than just drops, I read somewhere that he seemed to lack suddenness, struggling to get open.

---

Drops weren't nearly as big a problem as running consistent routes and getting open.

 

I agree.

---

I did, in fact, and it reads more like this to me:

 

"I'm actually a really good player, but the media wanted everyone to believe that I was terrible. The media is the reason I got cut, not my own faults as a player."

 

 

Except, um, that's not what the article said. The title of the article was literally:

"Stephen Hill: Media exaggerated how many passes I dropped"

 

 

Like I said before. you can think he is a terrible WR, terrible route runner, and has bad hands. You can say he isn't worth a flier, he is a waste of a roster spot, and he's a bust. That's fine. When you start misrepresenting his comments and calling him out for saying the media exaggerated his ONE dropped pass, then you really aren't giving the kid a fair shake. He might be a terrible WR and a bust in your eyes, but not EVERYTHING the kid says or does is erroneous.

 

You know how The Mad Dog will vow to hate a player and than anything that player does or says is condemnable? That is the tone you guys are starting to get re: Stephen Hill. Hill stated a well known fact about the New York media, that they exaggerate things, and you guys are acting like he blew up an animal shelter.

---

Except, um, that's not what the article said.

Stephen Hill said:

 

“[T]he New York media – and honestly this is me talking – did all that...They tried their best to get me out of there.”

He didn't stop at "the media exaggerated the number of passes I dropped." If he had, that'd be the end of it, and I'd agree with you completely on this particular topic.

 

The title of the article is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he proceeded to blame the New York media for his being cut. There's a big difference between pointing out a fact and blaming others for your own failures. I don't understand how you're not seeing this. You want to accuse others of having a TMD complex, how about you look in the mirror? Your constant excuse-making for a fringe NFL talent with serious attitude red flags rings true to the patterns of the disgruntled canine.

---

I understand the position of using a bottom roster spot for a player with the measurables of Stephen Hill.   Yet,  what jumps out on this end is that not one of the 32 teams in the NFL believes that Hill warrants a spot on their 53 man roster spot at this time.   At the very least,  Hill is a long way from ever playing to his measurables.    The bottom line is each team currently believes there's a better opportunity cost than Hill.    Someone who can contribute on a winning level on Special Teams has more short term value than a player like Hill,  who might have more long term overall value.   The key word is MIGHT.  

---

Dave: "Hey Jerry, do you think Hill is worth a look?"

Jerry: "Nope."

 

/Thread

---

Dave: "Hey Jerry, do you think Hill is worth a look?"

Jerry: "Nope."

 

/Thread

There's probably a lot of truth to that.  If the team had any interest, I'm sure their first inquiry would have been directed his way.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Dave: "Hey Jerry, do you think Hill is worth a look?"

Jerry: "Nope."

 

/Thread

 

None of us know if that convo existed or even if it did, that Jerry's answer was "no". 

---

None of us know if that convo existed or even if it did, that Jerry's answer was "no". 

Reliance upon conjecture has long been a hallmark of your arguments.

---

Reliance upon conjecture has long been a hallmark of your arguments.

Exactly.  It's only okay to do so when it's his agenda being propped up. 

 

Based on what we know about this front office, they evaluate every player that's out there.  I would expect them to rely on their position coaches to have some input if they were looking at a player.  It's not unfathomable that they did consult Sullivan since he'd be the one asked to "reclamate" (couldn't help myself) Hill.  They're not going to drop a guy in his lap that he may feel isn't worth the effort. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.