It seems that Trysten Hill belongs on a milk carton

[CowboyRoy]

That may be, but it was McClay and Richard who were defending the pick and giving the reasons that we made it over taking a safety, so I'm not willing to place all the blame (if there is blame to be placed) on Marinelli.

I do agree about return on investment, but after you get past the first round, every player has some kind of flaw (or they would be first-round picks) so you don't really know what your return on investment is going to be. I was hoping that he would be a quick study and give us the kind of 3-tech presence we need (the kind Irving was when his headcase antics didn't ruin a promising career).

I may have too much patience with young players based on seeing many take time to develop. I'm still holding out hope that Charlton will get his act straightened out, and saw the Houston preseason game as a possibility that that was happening. Him being inactive disappoints me far more than Hill.

All Richards did was toe the company line about needing the boys up front. Marinelli is the guy that claimed hill was the prototype for his defense.

 

[JBond]

And why didn’t he play much his rookie year?

Let’s see how informed you are?

Are you confirming he had 8 sacks in 12 games in year two?

He managed to get hurt, a reoccurring theme with him.

My numbers are correct for his first three seasons. My point is to not write off a player to early. DeMarcus is a tremendous player.

 

[CowboyRoy]

He managed to get hurt, a reoccurring theme with him.

My numbers are correct for his first three seasons. My point is to not write off a player to early. DeMarcus is a tremendous player.

Correct!!! So his rookie year was no indication of talent or ability.

In his first real season he had 8 sacks in only 12 games. So those that claim he didn’t show anything early are incorrect.

However he was hammered by some in year 3 after another injury/suspension and down year.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

Number one rule is, if Marinelli is excited about the guy, hes awful.

 

[Sydla]

15 games left in the season and you already know how good he will or will not be. C'mon man.....

I have no idea if he will play or not this year. Or how he'll play.

But facts are facts. He wasn't good enough to be active Week 1 (and there is no indication he's going to be active any time soon) and that is in no way a good thing for your 2nd round DT.

I mean if one is truly honest here, this is not a good start to his career.

The other point here is that this new defense of Hill and the pick where people are saying this was basically to be expected, that he wouldn't be a factor to start his career and was a longer term project is just bogus. The Cowboys drafted him and did so thinking he could contribute, at least, as a backup right from the start.

 

[CowboyRoy]

He managed to get hurt, a reoccurring theme with him.

My numbers are correct for his first three seasons. My point is to not write off a player to early. DeMarcus is a tremendous player.

Taco I wrote off early because he was soo bad it was obvious.

Hill I won’t write off but I still don’t agree with passing on some great safeties that dropped into our lap.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

He sure as ---- needs to improve and get better if he is taking over for anyone next year but then again the run defense was nothing to write home about.

 

[gimmesix]

All Richards did was toe the company line about needing the boys up front. Marinelli is the guy that claimed hill was the prototype for his defense.

Don't know if that's the case. We can speculate it but it goes against what was said.

Many assumed the team would choose a starting-caliber safety with their first pick. Speaking with 105.3 The Fan on Thursday, Broaddus confirmed it was actually defensive backs coach Kris Richard who pressed the war room to go in a different direction by selecting depth on the defensive line in Trysten Hill of Central Florida.

“This is going to be on Kris Richard,” Broaddus said. “This is Kris Richard going, ‘If we don’t have defensive linemen, my safeties aren’t gonna mean a damn.’ I’m using my words there. But Kris went into the room and basically explained. This is where you have to have coaches that really understand the draft and understand team building.”

Clarence Hill Jr ✔ @clarencehilljr


Kris Richard endorsed Cowboys pick of disruptive DT Trysten Hill over S Juan Thornhill https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article229759614.html …

Dallas secondary coach Kris Richard is thrilled to have Hill on board:

“This game is won up front. It’s a big man’s game,” Richard said, according to Charean Williams of ProFootballTalk. “When you’re able to get a player like the one that we got with Trysten, he’s got like generational-type athleticism, just freakish ability in regards to his athleticism. It’s hard to pass on a guy of that nature.”

Hill is coming off a junior campaign in which he totaled 36 tackles, 10.5 tackles for loss and three sacks.


While the Cowboys also needed some help in their defensive backfield, Richard said it’s more important to solidify the defensive front than it is to work on the secondary:

“We’ve got guys that can play, and that’s first and foremost,” Richard said. “We’ve got guys who can play everywhere. It’s hard to pass big for little. Very difficult. You’d much prefer to have the bigger man than the smaller man because it’s a big man’s game. Needless to say, we’ve got guys in the secondary who can play.”

 

[JayFord]

Number one rule is, if Marinelli is excited about the guy, hes awful.

Kinda off topic

Marinelli might want to sit in the box upstairs and coach he looks fragile and sick on the sidelines and it worries me he was walking like he had boo boo in his undies (not trying to be funny)

 

[xwalker]

Some can say well the coach didn't like him, but to me that's BS. It's college football, the best talent starts. Coaches can overlook a lot to win win games. Especially for a team like UCF who has had top 25 success over the past few years. This isn't FAU or FIU.

Hoping his potential is scratched but yea he looked like a day 3/UDFA type talent in pre-season.

I posted an interview with his college D-Coordinator (The DC in his final season).

The DC (Randy Shannon) said they do NOT always start the best players.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Don't know if that's the case. We can speculate it but it goes against what was said.

Ok well that is good evidence that maybe he was way in it. But there is no way he can be the one evaluating whether he is perfect for the 3 tech.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

[QUOTE="Sydla, post: 9428224, member: 37959"]I have no idea if he will play or not this year. Or how he'll play.

But facts are facts. He wasn't good enough to be active Week 1 (and there is no indication he's going to be active any time soon) and that is in no way a good thing for your 2nd round DT.

I mean if one is truly honest here, this is not a good start to his career.

The other point here is that this new defense of Hill and the pick where people are saying this was basically to be expected, that he wouldn't be a factor to start his career and was a longer term project is just bogus. The Cowboys drafted him and did so thinking he could contribute, at least, as a backup right from the start.[/QUOTE]

This is your post ....see red at the top
Equally head shaking is this new found defense that Hill was taken knowing he would largely be a non-factor as a rookie because he needed a year or two to develop.

So now you know what McClay and coaches are thinking and coz he didn't play in the first game of the season, the FO is disappointed.......I'm done, a waste of time.

 

[The Natural]

Crawford, Collins, Covington and Woods are not anything to sneeze at from a DT position. 2 of the 4 will not be around next season in Crawford and Covington. Keeping Hill fresh and available isn't an issue with that depth.

Everyone needs to chill. The kid will be a good one. He will get into games this year.

Those are all the same guys that got their backs blown out in the playoffs against the Rams right?

 

[Sydla]

[QUOTE="Sydla, post: 9428224, member: 37959"]I have no idea if he will play or not this year. Or how he'll play.

But facts are facts. He wasn't good enough to be active Week 1 (and there is no indication he's going to be active any time soon) and that is in no way a good thing for your 2nd round DT.

I mean if one is truly honest here, this is not a good start to his career.

The other point here is that this new defense of Hill and the pick where people are saying this was basically to be expected, that he wouldn't be a factor to start his career and was a longer term project is just bogus. The Cowboys drafted him and did so thinking he could contribute, at least, as a backup right from the start.

This is your post ....see red at the top
Equally head shaking is this new found defense that Hill was taken knowing he would largely be a non-factor as a rookie because he needed a year or two to develop.

So now you know what McClay and coaches are thinking and coz he didn't play in the first game of the season, the FO is disappointed.......I'm done, a waste of time. [/QUOTE]

My point wasn't that I think he's going to be a non-factor all year. The point was people are now arguing that it was to be expected that he might be a non-factor this year. That statement wasn't a commentary on what I think but rather the defense of the idea that it was to be expected that Hill would be a non-factor as a rookie.

Now that I read it, maybe I didn't do a good enough job explaining my point.

And we have a pretty good idea what McClay and others were thinking. No one uttered after the draft that Hill was taken as a long term project and likely would have no real impact as a rookie. I think it's naive (or homerism) that what they have gotten out of Hill to date is what they expected they were drafting.

Are you really going to argue that the front office took Hill in the 2nd round knowing there was a really good chance he wouldn't show much in camp and be inactive in his first NFL game?

 

[Beaker42]

That safety in the 2nd round looks even better now. But to be fair, dline is hard for a rookie out of the gates so can't rush to judgement this season on Hill.

The main gripe I and others have is that we could’ve (AND SHOULD’VE) taken Thornhill in the 2nd and then Hill with on every of our 4th’s (or maybe even our 5th). There was no need for that kid to be taken in the 2nd. NONE.

 

[BigD_95]

Jaylon Smith--with that every report about this kid was he would be a project and would take some "coaching" up. Not really shocked at all with how deep this line is currently he wasn't active.

Jaylon Smith was hurt - he wasn't playing because he wasn't good enough to make the active roster.

 

[gimmesix]

Ok well that is good evidence that maybe he was way in it. But there is no way he can be the one evaluating whether he is perfect for the 3 tech.

I would think the scouts who brought it to McClay's attention would be first in line. Then, McClay. Then, Marinelli and his coaches.

I really do not know how much weight Marinelli actually has in the evaluation process. I'm sure the scouting department wants to get someone who is a good fit for his scheme, but other than that, I'm not sure he has a button to push that says he wants a specific player. He likely gives his input from speaking and working with a player after that player is under consideration and it is valued to an extent ... but if I'm the guy whose head is on the chopping block, so to speak, concerning draft picks, I'm not going to pick a player strictly based on Marinelli's opinion, especially since Marinelli's never shown that he's particularly good at that aspect of the game.

It's kind of like the Joey Ivie pick that Marinelli gets blasted over. It was a late-rounder when there are a lot of players that teams take a flier on. It wasn't like anyone knew whether he'd turn out to be worthwhile, but Marinelli getting excited about it seems to have made a lot of fans use that as a sign that taking him was Marinelli's fault. I don't see anyone blaming the secondary coaches for us taking Marquez White a round earlier than that or the running back coach for Bo Scarbrough being taken in the seventh round the next year and failing. (Maybe we just blame the coordinators and head coach?)

I tend to blame the scouting department when draft picks fail and give them credit when draft picks succeed, because I really can't say I know the process beyond that.

 

[kskboys]

I have no idea if he will play or not this year. Or how he'll play.

But facts are facts. He wasn't good enough to be active Week 1 (and there is no indication he's going to be active any time soon) and that is in no way a good thing for your 2nd round DT.

I mean if one is truly honest here, this is not a good start to his career.

The other point here is that this new defense of Hill and the pick where people are saying this was basically to be expected, that he wouldn't be a factor to start his career and was a longer term project is just bogus. The Cowboys drafted him and did so thinking he could contribute, at least, as a backup right from the start.

If that's how the Cowboys felt, then the one doing the analyzing needs to be fired immediately. It was/is glaringly apparent that Hill is a project and unlikely to contribute early.

I was against the pick, BTW, for that reason.

 

[kumizi]

The book on Hill isn't even close to being closed.....

but I think you can be a fan of the team, agree that they're one of the better drafting teams in the league, and still admit that taking Hill over Thornhill was probably a big mistake.

 

[G2]

Some players work out and some don't, certainly a little early to throw in the towel.