Twitter: Trysten vs Neville

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,136
What writers and what exactly did they "report" other than the 1 meeting and 1 time being late.

  • College DC
    • There was an interview with Hill's 2nd college DC (Randy Shannon). I posted it here last year.
    • He said that there was not a problem with Hill's attitude and that Hill worked hard in practice and had a "high motor".
    • The only problem they had related to "attitude" was that Hill got angry when the new HC denied his request to transfer with the other coaching staff.
    • It was not Shannon's decision to not start Hill. That was made by the HC. Shannon implied he didn't agree.
    • Hill was clearly better than the other DTs in game footage. Al Davis once "benched" Marcus Allen by not starting him and limiting his snaps because of personal reasons.
    • Shannon said that their HC didn't always start the best players. They started the players that best implemented their schemes/techniques.
    • Remember when Nick Golden Cock Hayden started multiple seasons at 1tech because he always had the least "loafs" when they graded film?
    • Much like what Marinelli said, Shannon said that Hill didn't always implement the techniques that they wanted him to use.
    • They had moved him to 3tech. He had played 3-4 NT with the previous coaching staff.
    • Just like Marinelli, they wanted him to focus on pass rushing but the original college staff had ingrained into him to play the run first.
  • Fan Narrative
    • I'm certain that I've researched this subject far more than you have researched it.
    • I have no reason to support Hill. I didn't advocate to draft him or anything like that.
    • My interest is in regards to false fan narratives.
    • Hill was in the 2nd college Head Coaches doghouse; therefore the fan narrative becomes that he is lazy and a problem child.
    • The fan narrative continues despite the fact that the DC on that 2nd college coaching staff clearing saying that Hill did not have an attitude issue and that he practiced hard and had a high motor.
    • The fan narrative then expands due to minor issues during his rookie season despite Marinelli clearly saying that bad attitude or lack of work ethic were definitely not the problem.
    • Then the narrative further expands with either some media speculating that Hill had an attitude problem or fans imagining that the media "reported" that Hill had an attitude problem.

Calvin Watkins had a story on it. Todd Archer talked about it. Shoot, even Mickey kind of alluded to it earlier this year. For example, this came directly from the official Cowboys website on Hill's 2020 projection for the team:

Hill received opportunities in the first two games of last season and barely saw the field as the season progressed. Whether that was because of his inability to contribute or because the coaching staff had concerns about his attitude is almost irrelevant; either possibility is a problem. Hill was disciplined early in the season for being late to team meeting. Clashes with coaching staffs was an issue that carried over from his time in college.

When this comes from the official Cowboys website, it's not just made up stuff.

In a November 1 press conference, Garrett was asked about Hill and Garrett admitted Hill needed to grow up a bit and become a professional. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what he's talking about. Hill was immature and had some attitude issues.

The evidence is pretty strong that Hill had some attitude issues and rubbed coaches the wrong way last year. And he did the same thing at UCF. You want to pretend that none of this happened or that the very clear trend doesn't indicate anything but anyone who is honest here knows the reality. Hill is a talented kid who has to mature in order to reach is potential. Not just physically, but mentally. It's pretty bizarre you can't admit what was pretty obvious. I'd trust beat writers that are close to the team over you when it comes to knowing what kind of person Hill was.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Hill received opportunities in the first two games of last season and barely saw the field as the season progressed. Whether that was because of his inability to contribute or because the coaching staff had concerns about his attitude is almost irrelevant; either possibility is a problem. Hill was disciplined early in the season for being late to team meeting. Clashes with coaching staffs was an issue that carried over from his time in college.
Thanks for doing the research for me.

That is a perfect example of media speculation that fans try to attribute as "reported" by the media.

They are not reporting that Hill had and attitude problem. They're pondering if he had an attitude problem and if it contributed to his lack of playing time.
 

Ranched

"We Are Penn State"
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
84,323
:muttley:
46xk4p.jpg
 

Cowboys22

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,507
Reaction score
11,384
You had the chance to reply to debate the facts/details but you had the reply above which was just ducking out of the debate because you couldn't support you claims.

Then you cry because you get ridiculed for ducking out.

I said Hill sucked as a rookie. That's a fact. I don't need to support it because the game tape does that. You are the one crying and making baseless personal attacks because no one gets your twisted nonsensical logic and ridiculous excuses for Hill. I don't really care what his problems are. He simply didn't do whatever it took to make himself a good enough player to contribute to the team. In my book that means you suck and I don't really care why. If he is a different player this year with new coaches, great! That still won't change the fact that he SUCKED last year. Claiming anything else is just foolish nonsense.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,136
Thanks for doing the research for me.

That is a perfect example of media speculation that fans try to attribute as "reported" by the media.

They are not reporting that Hill had and attitude problem. They're pondering if he had an attitude problem and if it contributed to his lack of playing time.

You read that wrong, which is not really all that surprising.

The "possibility" they are talking about is what led to the limited PT - either the fact he struggled to make any plays OR the fact he had attitude issues. The "possibility" isn't in reference to the two issues being possible, the "possibility" is in reference to which issue caused him not to get PT. And that point was clear when they said clearly in the last sentence that Hill had clashes with coaches. You chose to cherry pick and distort a comment without giving weight to the entire post.

And as I pointed out, even Garrett basically came out and said last November he needs to mature/grow and be "more professional". That's about as clear as you will get from any HC that the kid needs to wise up.

You have your head buried in the sand on this one, . It's pretty clear that he had some issues with coaches and professionalism and some maturity as a NFL player last year. You are just choosing to ignore that for some weird reason. It doesn't mean he can't overcome it either, he just will need to in order to reach his potential.
 
Last edited:

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
You read that wrong, which is not really all that surprising.

The "possibility" they are talking about is what led to the limited PT - either the fact he struggled to make any plays OR the fact he had attitude issues. The "possibility" isn't in reference to the two issues being possible, the "possibility" is in reference to which issue caused him not to get PT. And that point was clear when they said clearly in the last sentence that Hill had clashes with coaches. You chose to cherry pick and distort a comment without giving weight to the entire post.

And as I pointed out, even Garrett basically came out and said last November he needs to mature/grow and be "more professional". That's about as clear as you will get from any HC that the kid needs to wise up.

You have your head buried in the sand on this one, . It's pretty clear that he had some issues with coaches and professionalism and some maturity as a NFL player last year. You are just choosing to ignore that for some weird reason. It doesn't mean he can't overcome it either, he just will need to in order to reach his potential.
Wrong.

It is intentionally vague. Something that could be interpreted the way you did but without actually saying that those things definitely happened.

It's a common methodology of sport media.

This nuance of implication over actual reporting to inflame the existing narrative is exactly the point that I'm making.

Trysten Hill just happens to be a conduit to making my point.

How else is Garrett going to answer questions after Hill and Woods got into trouble for being late?

Garrett is saying that Hill was immature for the meeting incidents. You're trying to put additional meanings into what Garrett said.

We watched Garrett for many years. He just gives generic answers. He never gave out information beyond what was already known.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
Thanks for doing the research for me.

That is a perfect example of media speculation that fans try to attribute as "reported" by the media.

They are not reporting that Hill had and attitude problem. They're pondering if he had an attitude problem and if it contributed to his lack of playing time.

I've also read that the issue his last year of college was that the new coaching staff tied to make an example of him to look tough, because he was the best player on the defense by a wide margin. So they would announce he wasn't starting and then hold him out for the first few snaps to show they were the boss.

Most players would think they were being singled out while other programs coddled their best players. That's different than entitlement.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I said Hill sucked as a rookie. That's a fact. I don't need to support it because the game tape does that. You are the one crying and making baseless personal attacks because no one gets your twisted nonsensical logic and ridiculous excuses for Hill. I don't really care what his problems are. He simply didn't do whatever it took to make himself a good enough player to contribute to the team. In my book that means you suck and I don't really care why. If he is a different player this year with new coaches, great! That still won't change the fact that he SUCKED last year. Claiming anything else is just foolish nonsense.

Only people that can't support their argument say they don't need to support it.

You think Hill sucked because he didn't play much and because other people told you he sucked.

You have no clue about what he actually did wrong or right when he did play. You probably don't know his jersey number without looking it up.

DeMarcus Lawrence didn't start as a rookie and was only active for 7 games. By your definition, he must have "sucked".

Ron Leary went to the practice squad his rookie year. According to your definition, he "sucked".
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I've also read that the issue his last year of college was that the new coaching staff tied to make an example of him to look tough, because he was the best player on the defense by a wide margin. So they would announce he wasn't starting and then hold him out for the first few snaps to show they were the boss.

Most players would think they were being singled out while other programs coddled their best players. That's different than entitlement.
Sounds like the year Parcells "failed" Larry Allen on his conditioning test.

Parcells just wanted all other players to see that Parcells was the boss; therefore, he used the All Pro, 1st ballot Hall of Fame player to make his point.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
Sounds like the year Parcells "failed" Larry Allen on his conditioning test.

Parcells just wanted all other players to see that Parcells was the boss; therefore, he used the All Pro, 1st ballot Hall of Fame player to make his point.

Pretty sure Terry Glenn never transitioned to Female either!
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,136
Wrong.

It is intentionally vague. Something that could be interpreted the way you did but without actually saying that those things definitely happened.

It's a common methodology of sport media.

This nuance of implication over actual reporting to inflame the existing narrative is exactly the point that I'm making.

Trysten Hill just happens to be a conduit to making my point.

How else is Garrett going to answer questions after Hill and Woods got into trouble for being late?

Garrett is saying that Hill was immature for the meeting incidents. You're trying to put additional meanings into what Garrett said.

We watched Garrett for many years. He just gives generic answers. He never gave out information beyond what was already known.

It's not vague at all when the last line of the post says he had clashes with the coaches. There is nothing "vague" about that comment at all. So when you see it, it pretty much explains the point they were making.

Hill had some maturity/attitude issues last year. That's clear as day. Multiple beat writers reported on it. The official Cowboys website even said it. Jason Garrett basically said it in an interview on Nov 1 when asked about Hill's issues all he could say was that Hill needed to grow/mature as a player and becoming a "better professional" (that's an exact phrase from Garrett). Yes, he gives generic answers so when he says a player needs to mature and be a better professional, it's pretty clear what he is saying about their issues with Hill.

And yes, missing a meeting right after getting called out for sleeping by a NBA Hall of Famer are signs of immaturity and an attitude issue.

You are trying to hide behind "naunce" and other BS when it's pretty clear he had some maturity and attitude issues last year. Why you are pushing back on something that's pretty well documented at this point is just strange.
 

Plankton

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,005
Reaction score
17,889
I'm not predicting that Hill will or won't succeed. I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of the narrative that has developed is just made up by fans/media. All coaches have said he has a "high motor" but fans continue to claim that he is lazy.

Everybody knew that Hill would take more time than average to adapt to the NFL. A DT with his measurable(s) that didn't have drug or criminal issues and didn't have injury issues, would normally be a 1st round pick unless the player was expected to be slow to develop.

Garrett/Marinelli were a bad combination. Marinelli needs a head coach with an over-bearing personality that will demand that he adjust.

It is possible to have a high motor and to be lazy at the same time.

When in pads and on the field, Hill shows a high motor. He is quick off the snap, and will hustle on plays down the field. He was in on a number of tackles/piles down the field. However, it could be that Hill is lazy in the weight room and when it comes to film study. Hill needs a lot of improvement in core strength, as he would be taken off his feet quite a bit, and played with such forward lean that he would lose balance and fall. Better core strength would aid him here, and I don't know that he put in the weight room work to correct it. Also, he didn't seem to have a real plan when he would rush. His goal was just to get upfield without any sense as to how to set his opponent up. If he was better in film study, he would better know how to attack an opposing lineman, and not show the same style of attack each time.

I think Hill has some tools to work with. I also think that he was a guy that the team focused on prior to the draft selection process at the expense of seeing what talent was still on the board when they selected him. I felt like they left better players on the board when they picked him (while Thornhill would have been great, I preferred Chauncey Gardner-Johnson, who ended up having a real good season with the Saints). It's all moot at this point, but he needs to up his game.
 

Future

Intramural Legend
Messages
27,566
Reaction score
14,714
Gallimore was drafted at age 23. Hill was 21.

That should be a huge factor in guessing what they're going to be as a rookie.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It's not vague at all when the last line of the post says he had clashes with the coaches. There is nothing "vague" about that comment at all. So when you see it, it pretty much explains the point they were making.

Hill had some maturity/attitude issues last year. That's clear as day. Multiple beat writers reported on it. The official Cowboys website even said it. Jason Garrett basically said it in an interview on Nov 1 when asked about Hill's issues all he could say was that Hill needed to grow/mature as a player and becoming a "better professional" (that's an exact phrase from Garrett). Yes, he gives generic answers so when he says a player needs to mature and be a better professional, it's pretty clear what he is saying about their issues with Hill.

And yes, missing a meeting right after getting called out for sleeping by a NBA Hall of Famer are signs of immaturity and an attitude issue.

You are trying to hide behind "naunce" and other BS when it's pretty clear he had some maturity and attitude issues last year. Why you are pushing back on something that's pretty well documented at this point is just strange.

I take it that you failed reading comprehension...

Again, they're not reporting that they know that Hill had clashes with his college coaches. They're just referencing the general narrative that it happened.

His 2nd college D-Coordinator said specifically on-air that there was not a problem between Hill and the coaches with regards to attitude or effort.

The D-Coordinator knows what happened. Local Dallas area Cowboys beat reporters do not know what happened. How is that hard to understand?

Thanks for being the person that got suckered into helping me make my point.

You're giving evidence of how a herd member attaches themselves to a narrative.

You're giving exact examples of how it happens by showing how you fall for the implied comments as being "reports".

The word is nuance by the way, not "naunce".

I really don't know if you're just desperate to "win" an argument or if your reading comprehension if really just terrible. Hopefully it's not the latter.
 

Beaker42

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,050
Reaction score
7,366
Listen more. Talk less.

  • I was undecided on Thornhill vs Hill.
    • It was obvious that Thornhill would be ready earlier than Hill, but if Hill panned out it is the much more difficult type player to obtain.
      • Keep in mind that Thornhill was the 6th Safety drafted that year. Other teams obviously did not have him super highly rated either...
      • I liked Thornhill but he was a FS or CB and the Cowboys had 2 players that could play FS but zero that were good options at SS.
    • The Cowboys decision on Thornhill vs Hill came down to Thornhill vs Safeties they liked in the 3rd round.
      • They were not going to draft a Safety in both the 2nd and 3rd but they targeted getting a Strong Safety in the 3rd; therefore, they took the DT in the 2nd.
      • They targeted 2 DBs in the 3rd but their top target was drafted at #81 and they had pick #90.
      • That Safety did start as a rookie and played well. They had a good plan but it didn't work out.
    • Their approach did work out in 2020. They could have traded up in the 2nd to draft Diggs but took the chance that he would be available at their pick.
      • They took that chance because they were content to draft Gallimore in the 2nd if Diggs was off the board.
      • They ended up getting both.
  • "EVERYBODY"
    • The same group of people thought Travis Frederick was "over drafted". I loved the pick.
    • A huge number of people at CZ wanted to draft Manziel back in 2014. I was adamantly against drafting Manziel.
    • I was the only fan that wanted to draft Witten in the 1st round back in 2003...
      • The Cowboys get praised for picking Witten in the 3rd but that means they skipped drafting him in the 2nd.
      • That would have been a colossally bad decision if some other team had drafted him before their pick in the 3rd.
Post whatever garbage you want. Thornhill should’ve been the pick and then Hill, and more than likely Thornhill, a different player in the 3rd, THEN Hill in the 4th. He’d have been there. GUARANTEED. NOBODY wanted him to the crazy stupid-azz extent we did.

A 2nd rounder by all rights should be able to contribute on a weekly basis. Hill’s sorry carcass was inactive for half the season. It was a suck pick and you know it.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Gallimore was drafted at age 23. Hill was 21.

That should be a huge factor in guessing what they're going to be as a rookie.
Excellent point.

Even comparing them today, Gallimore is 14 months older than Hill.
 

Beaker42

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,050
Reaction score
7,366
Thanks for doing the research for me.

That is a perfect example of media speculation that fans try to attribute as "reported" by the media.

They are not reporting that Hill had and attitude problem. They're pondering if he had an attitude problem and if it contributed to his lack of playing time.
Hill had problems with his UCF staff and then the Cowboys staff last year. I’d tell you to quit being obtuse but it would be pointless. You’re the resident expert on knowing jack s**t.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Post whatever garbage you want.

Your response is an indicator that my post was too complicated for you to understand and/or you're too lazy to respond to the details.

It's funny that fans hammer on players for being lazy or for not immediately understanding NFL schemes/techniques, yet those same fans are often too lazy to put any effort into discussing the details and either too lazy or not competent enough to make a legit counter arguments.
 

Beaker42

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,050
Reaction score
7,366
Excellent point.

Even comparing them today, Gallimore is 14 months older than Hill.
Age has nothing to do with it ...... it’s MATURITY AND ATTITUDE. Plenty of 21 year olds have had no trouble getting on field and helping as 2nd rounders. We took this kid over a kid who has been a consummate pro and played great. He’s a bust.
 

Cowboys22

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,507
Reaction score
11,384
Only people that can't support their argument say they don't need to support it.

You think Hill sucked because he didn't play much and because other people told you he sucked.

You have no clue about what he actually did wrong or right when he did play. You probably don't know his jersey number without looking it up.

DeMarcus Lawrence didn't start as a rookie and was only active for 7 games. By your definition, he must have "sucked".

Ron Leary went to the practice squad his rookie year. According to your definition, he "sucked".


His tape supports it. There is nothing more needed in support of the fact Hill sucked.

I think he sucked because of what I saw when he played which was him doing nothing, being easily blocked, and falling down most of the time.

I know he didn't make very many plays, if any. I don't care about the jersey numbers of losers. I concern myself with important things.

Lawrence and Leary both showed promise with their play. Lawrence had an injury issue I believe and Leary was caught in a numbers game but both made you think they had futures so no they didn't suck as rookies.
 
Top