Will Hill released

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

14 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

I've never said it was either Webb or Hill, I just used Webb as an example to show that dead cap matters - I, at no point this offseason, have thought that Webb will or should be cut, he's a good player, I just used him as an example. I feel like you're trying to argue with me under the assumption that I'm saying either Webb or Hill was going to be cut and dead cap was the decider, and that's not what I'm saying at all.

your comment came off as saying that dead money was a factor in the decision to cut Hill as opposed to webb. i.e. bc there wasnt much dead money with Hill, where with Webb it was $6m, since the savings was similar then cutting Hill makes more sense. 

if thats not what you meant, then my apologies.

Edited March 16, 2016 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[spitfire418]

2 minutes ago, DrPuff said:

This isnt madden 25. He had no trade value. Not with his prior suspensions and average production.

Lol. He had trade value. Period.

[JoeyFlex5]

24 minutes ago, DrPuff said:

In no way would a team give up a #1 pick for a #6 for an average safety. We would have to give up multiple 1st rounders and a second. No one at 1 is worth that kind of ammunition in this draft. Just look at the Redskins a few years back. Or the saints with Ricky Williams.

I said a future first as well. Givign up a proven and young starter at position they're desperate for would cut down on draft picks needed. It could honestly replace a 2nd or 3rd rounder and we could still keep our 2016 draft stock relatively high. 

23 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

He's being sarcastic

I'm really not. I don't know where that came from. I didn't say trade hill for first overall outright. Maybe if you read the whole post instead of being bitter and short sighted You would have saw the rationale 

[DrPuff]

Just now, spitfire418 said:

Lol. He had trade value. Period.

Keep telling yourself that. Reality tells me he got cut.

[DrPuff]

Interesting. Dramatic drop off.

[hn68wb4]

Just now, DrPuff said:

This isnt madden 25. He had no trade value. Not with his prior suspensions and average production.

Continuously reiterating the same line doesn't make it true. He has clear trade value, some have rose tinted glasses and others go to the other extreme, you are currently residing in that other extreme. Hill was not an all pro safety, he wasn't on the fast track to the hall of fame, nobody is suggesting that he'd net us a 1st or 2nd round pick, but he was easily an above average safety and the fact that he hasn't gotten into trouble since his suspension overrules it like it does for every above average player. We were able to get a 7th round conditional pick from Dallas for a linebacker that was a first round bust, had character issues and had left the game for 2 years - Hill certainly could have gotten us better than that. The trade value is there for teams that need a safety.

[spitfire418]

Just now, hn68wb4 said:

Continuously reiterating the same line doesn't make it true. He has clear trade value, some have rose tinted glasses and others go to the other extreme, you are currently residing in that other extreme. Hill was not an all pro safety, he wasn't on the fast track to the hall of fame, nobody is suggesting that he'd net us a 1st or 2nd round pick, but he was easily an above average safety and the fact that he hasn't gotten into trouble since his suspension overrules it like it does for every above average player. We were able to get a 7th round conditional pick from Dallas for a linebacker that was a first round bust, had character issues and had left the game for 2 years - Hill certainly could have gotten us better than that. The trade value is there for teams that need a safety.

Yep... Some people don't get it. Teams will trade for all kinds of players.

[DrPuff]

Just now, hn68wb4 said:

Continuously reiterating the same line doesn't make it true. He has clear trade value, some have rose tinted glasses and others go to the other extreme, you are currently residing in that other extreme. Hill was not an all pro safety, he wasn't on the fast track to the hall of fame, nobody is suggesting that he'd net us a 1st or 2nd round pick, but he was easily an above average safety and the fact that he hasn't gotten into trouble since his suspension overrules it like it does for every above average player. We were able to get a 7th round conditional pick from Dallas for a linebacker that was a first round bust, had character issues and had left the game for 2 years - Hill certainly could have gotten us better than that. The trade value is there for teams that need a safety.

Hill had no trade value. Zero. No one is going to trade for someone with 1 mistake away from a year ban. Sorry you cant understand that concept.

[hn68wb4]

3 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

your comment came off as saying that dead money was a factor in the decision to cut Hill as opposed to webb. i.e. bc there wasnt much dead money with Hill, where with Webb it was $6m, since the savings was similar then cutting Hill makes more sense. 

if thats not what you meant, then my apologies.

I used Webb as a comparison, I wasn't outright suggesting a choice between the two. I was saying that he was liable to go because he saved us money and had minimal dead cap

[RavensFan34950]

3 minutes ago, DrPuff said:

Interesting. Dramatic drop off.

Just read that too. Our defense did become better once Hill started getting subbed out for Webb at safety. 

[pep_meister]

1 minute ago, RavensFan34950 said:

Just read that too. Our defense did become better once Hill started getting subbed out for Webb at safety. 

There has to be more to that. a lot more. dude doesn't go his entire career being rated by PFF in the top 1-10 and then fall to 70. 

i guess my last fond memory of will hill will be returning that blocked FG for a TD... u will be missed HIll

Edited March 16, 2016 by pep_meister

[spitfire418]

1 minute ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Don't you think they explored trading him? I doubt we just cut him without exploring getting something in return. If a trade was there it wouldve been made.

Someones trade value is what someone is willing to give you. Judging by the fact that we just cut him, im going to guess Hill's trade value was zero.

Yeah they obviously should've explored trading him. We don't know the exact situation, but based off of Hill's play, contract, age, etc. he definitely had some type of trade value.

[Bandwagon]

Read a rumor on this like 3 days ago can't believe it actually happened.

[hawkprey]

Obviously he didn't get enough effort stickers.

[hn68wb4]

4 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Don't you think they explored trading him? I doubt we just cut him without exploring getting something in return. If a trade was there it wouldve been made.

Someones trade value is what someone is willing to give you. Judging by the fact that we just cut him, im going to guess Hill's trade value was zero.

The problem with putting someone on the trading block is that you are outright saying "we can live without him" and the signing of Weddle didn't help - teams probably assumed he would be cut, that doesn't mean his trade value is zero though, i'm sure if we waited we could have found a trade partner but the front office could have reason to not wait - I don't know but Hill definitely has trade value.

[JoeyFlex5]

5 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

I did read your whole post, no need making a baseless assumption because I made an assessment based on your previous posts dismissing those who didn't like the decision. As well as an assessment of the trade and I don't think it makes much sense from the either teams' point of view. Ramsey has higher upside than Hill for the Titans, and we don't have a high enough need at safety to give up that much for Ramsey.

Obviously Ramsey has higher upside than hill alone but they also have stated clearly that trading back is their plan a and a 3rd and future first and hill is overall much higher upside than one player in Ramsey. Again with your shirt sightedness..

 

Also, Its not a baseless assumption, you assumed I was being sarcastic with a well thought out post based on what... The fact that I don't think will hill is some elite savior of our secondary and everyone else does? That's pretty much a baseless assumption on your part.

 

[52520Andrew]

57 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

Maybe the first part of the year. Jimmy Smith started really coming back into form at the end of the year and I'd say he was our best DB last year. You could tell the injury affected him early and only started to subside late in the year. He even said as much recently in an interview.

I thought Jimmy Smith just wasn't confident enough

[Edug27]

FS: Webb/Brooks

SS: Weddle/Elam

... Could be worse. Weddle can give you the same product Hill did, if not better. The question becomes is if Webb can be an upgrade over Lewis? Or does Brooks and Webb split time and allow Brooks to eventually take over that spot? Time will tell.

[DrPuff]

Just now, hn68wb4 said:

The problem with putting someone on the trading block is that you are outright saying "we can live without him" and the signing of Weddle didn't help - teams probably assumed he would be cut, that doesn't mean his trade value is zero though, i'm sure if we waited we could have found a trade partner but the front office could have reason to not wait - I don't know but Hill definitely has trade value.

My whole argument is the suspensions with Hill. If he didnt have them then maybe he had some value. But not with those priors. Most teams have become greedy with picks, even 7th rounders in recent years. Logic is to wait and see if someone gets cut in the coming months. Which happened with Hill.

[spitfire418]

1 minute ago, Edug27 said:

FS: Webb/Brooks

SS: Weddle/Elam

... Could be worse. Weddle can give you the same product Hill did, if not better. The question becomes is if Webb can be an upgrade over Lewis? Or does Brooks and Webb split time and allow Brooks to eventually take over that spot? Time will tell.

I would like those two as backups, but we still have Kendrick Lewbust.

[Drew P]

He wasn't as great as some are making him out to be. Get a decent CB in the draft that's the glaring weakness. If Jack/Bosa/Buckner aren't available Hargreaves makes perfect sense.

[DrPuff]

Just now, Edug27 said:

FS: Webb/Brooks

SS: Weddle/Elam

... Could be worse. Weddle can give you the same product Hill did, if not better. The question becomes is if Webb can be an upgrade over Lewis? Or does Brooks and Webb split time and allow Brooks to eventually take over that spot? Time will tell.

Lewis will be the rotating safety unless Elam and Brooks improve over the summer. Dont forget about Levine too. Not a big name guy but Harbaugh clearly likes him. Hes stuck around this long, good special team player.

[redrum52]

1 hour ago, EnVy_CaLiBeR said:

They were serious about Webb being the safety I guess. They want two guys who can cover back there. Webb/Weddle fit that bill and will both be leaders on that defense. 

This is what I'm figuring.  Webb at FS/Nickel and Weddle at FS.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

3 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

The problem with putting someone on the trading block is that you are outright saying "we can live without him" and the signing of Weddle didn't help - teams probably assumed he would be cut, that doesn't mean his trade value is zero though, i'm sure if we waited we could have found a trade partner but the front office could have reason to not wait - I don't know but Hill definitely has trade value.

We wouldve had to hold onto him until after the draft, maybe into preseason. That's $3m in cap space just being sat on in hopes of getting maybe a 6th rounder for 2017.

I'm sure eventually we couldve found someone to give up something for Hill... but who knows how long it wouldve taken. That $3m in cap space allows them to be active in FA. 

Hill may have future trade value, but right now his trade value was zero. And his $3m in cap savings was obviously worth more to the team than the hope of recouping a late round 2017 pick.

[spitfire418]

Just now, redrum52 said:

This is what I'm figuring.  Webb at FS/Nickel and Weddle at FS.

So who starts at SS?

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, Ravens4Real said:

I can discredit those weeks. We were already in full tank mode by that point and were starting to try guys out at all various positions.

Hill is only 26 years old and before the end of the year last year, was nothing but a very good safety his whole career.

Except no player is going to tank it because they know they have to play well to stay in the league.

The Ravens actually had a better record over the second half of the season and didn't sit a single starter unless it was injury/extremely poor performance. They weren't just taking guys out to take them out and they certainly were playing competitively. 

[DrPuff]

Just now, spitfire418 said:

So who starts at SS?

I have a feeling Webb will be labeled the starting SS. But with pees and how he likes to disguise we wont really have a true SS. Both will play the position. Just my guess.

[spitfire418]

Just heard that Will Hill is facing possible discipline from the NFL.

 

Jeff Zrebiec ‏@jeffzrebiecsun  5m5 minutes ago

More to Will Hill cut: He's facing potential discipline from the league.

Edited March 16, 2016 by spitfire418

[redlobster]

I think news will come out that he got in trouble or popped for peds , etc.

 

not sure what else prompted this.

[hn68wb4]

1 minute ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Obviously Ramsey has higher upside than hill alone but they also have stated clearly that trading back is their plan a and a 3rd and future first and hill is overall much higher upside than one player in Ramsey. Again with your shirt sightedness..

 

Also, Its not a baseless assumption, you assumed I was being sarcastic with a well thought out post based on what... The fact that I don't think will hill is some elite savior of our secondary and everyone else does? That's pretty much a baseless assumption on your part.

 

Ok, they are looking for a trade but they could surely get a better deal than that and from our point of view, why would we offer that trade? Trading up that high for Ramsey would not be a good move and that's a heck of a lot to give up for Tunsil when we could easily have Stanley right where we are - or get an established tackle for that steep of a price.

I'm sorry for my "shirt" sightedness (actually I'm longsighted but people generally don't know the difference)

No, based on your refusal to even entertain people who thought is was bad move - as I've said before, nobody is saying he's the best safety ever, nobody is saying our secondary will suck because of the move (except for one guy I think said that), painting everyone who outright said it was a bad move and he was a very good SS as naive or looking through rose tinted glasses is just disingenuous.