You're using the logical fallacy of "ad ignorantiam"/"argument from ignorance." The lack of evidence of something does not prove it to be false.
https://practicalpie.com/appeal-to-ignorance-fallacy/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I'm not saying there is "another Hill." I'm saying that there are some players who can do enough of what Hill does to be a viable backup to him when he can't play. Other teams don't have an equal player to Hill, so they are not looking for a backup similar to Hill, they are looking for an equivalent, starter quality version of Hill. Those are very different things that don't require the same level of talent and ability.