Taysom Hill: America's Most Overrated QB

[pbmax]

You disagree that he should have made the roster? Bridgewater may be the best backup in the NFL, so the Saints keeping him really isn't much of statement on Hill's talent. He may be a gadget guy in your eyes, but the dude is an athlete that makes plays. Great weapon on STs, around the goal line and in short yardage situations. He scored a couple TDs last year, that's better than a handful of the scrubs we have filling out the bottom of the roster on offense.

If he makes such a good backup, why does NO spend the money on Bridgewater? Brees’ doesn’t get hurt.

[Bretsky]

maybe they value a very good backup

Personally I'd take him over Kizer

I'd probably take Matt Flynn and Ty Detmer and Doug Flutie over Kizer right now as well

[Zool]

If he makes such a good backup, why does NO spend the money on Bridgewater? Brees’ doesn’t get hurt.

2 gadget plays per game, and slightly above average special teams play?

[pbmax]

2 gadget plays per game, and slightly above average special teams play?

Exactly. He is an emergency QB.

[yetisnowman]

If he makes such a good backup, why does NO spend the money on Bridgewater? Brees’ doesn’t get hurt.

Because he's not a better backup than Bridgewater. I would argue he's better than Kizer, but even if he isn't he still should have got a spot. You started the thread, just voicing my opinion. The Saints have had better talent than Green Bay and they found a way to get impact plays out of their 3rd string QB. I'll take that over skill guys like Moore, Davis, etc.

[mraynrand]

The Saints have had better talent than Green Bay and they found a way to get impact plays out of their 3rd string QB.

Perhaps they got the impact plays out of him because they had better talent than GB? When you have to cover their wideouts and RBs, a physically gifted guy like Hill can make plays (plus, you'd probs rather have him throw his body in there than Brees...).

[bobblehead]

This is silly. He has as many pass completions as receptions - 3. He has 37 rushing attempts. Right now, he's no more than a gadget. He could be solid, but that's total speculation or at least an educated guess. I'll be convinced that he's a solid backup when he has to start a game for an injured Brees (or any starting QB). But, like PBmax suggests, that might not happen, because even NO didn't want to see that.

Sounds like a good argument....also sounds like ARod when we traded Favre.

[bobblehead]

I don't think any of these claims have sufficient validation. Hell, Kizer's only thrown 42 passes for the Packers, Hill 7? for the Saints. So you could be totally right or totally wrong. I honestly don't really want to see either of them starting an NFL football game.

If the Packers need a backup to start more than a game or two, forget about it.

But we cut Hill and traded decent resources for Kizer...and pay him more than Hill. Agree, lose the 30 mil QB and you're in trouble.

[bobblehead]

I honestly believe they have decided that they have spent enough money on the QB position with Rodgers and the most they will live with is a rookie or an exclusive rights FA.

100% true. But again, Hill can play QB and also contributes in many ways. My only point is that we had a backup and we let him go to keep other crappy backups. I would feel every bit as confident with Hill as I would with Kizer or Boyle. I would of course not want Hill starting 12 games.

[mraynrand]

But we cut Hill and traded decent resources for Kizer...and pay him more than Hill. Agree, lose the 30 mil QB and you're in trouble.

Ya, I don't think that's what was primarily going on - the Packers dumped 23 and got what they could for him. If the Saints don't want Hill as a backup, why would the Packers? Still, you make the point that the Packers liked Kizer more than Hill. Maybe cogitate on that.

[mraynrand]

I would feel every bit as confident with Hill as I would with Kizer or Boyle.

We got that part. Packers and Saints seem to disagree with you. Maybe you are right and they are wrong.

[bobblehead]

Kizer might not be, but my point, as always, is that Hill is probably worse.

Probably. Nice word. Again, we didn't trade a starting safety for Hill....we cut him. Hill has a blocked kick and a ton of valuable snaps contributed to the Saints offense. To point out he is likely not the backup because the Saints have chosen to pay a former Pro Bowl QB to be the backup means absolutely nothing. If you ranked the 32 NFL backups Bridewater is probably #1. Hill is likely #12-18 when you factor in his contributions all over the field. I wish we had Hill instead of TO machine Kizer.

[mraynrand]

Probably. Nice word. Again, we didn't trade a starting safety for Hill....we cut him. Hill has a blocked kick and a ton of valuable snaps contributed to the Saints offense. To point out he is likely not the backup because the Saints have chosen to pay a former Pro Bowl QB to be the backup means absolutely nothing. If you ranked the 32 NFL backups Bridewater is probably #1. Hill is likely #12-18 when you factor in his contributions all over the field. I wish we had Hill instead of TO machine Kizer.

Saints didn't want Hill as their backup QB

[bobblehead]

We got that part. Packers and Saints seem to disagree with you. Maybe you are right and they are wrong.

No, the saints don't agree with me. They got the chance to get a former pro bowl QB for a nice deal and possibly have a future after Brees calls it quits and they signed him. They also haven't officially announced who the backup is at this point THIS season.

[bobblehead]

Saints didn't want Hill as their backup QB

He has more snaps under center in recent history than Bridgewater.