Again, why do Bernard and Hill both have to be top 10 RBs every year to justify a higher than late second pick for Hill. Most teams don't have two of Jamaal Charles, LeSean McCoy and Adrian Peterson as their starting RBs. Most teams, on average, will have one top 12-14-16 RB (not all teams win with two great RBs, some strategies emphasize having top WRs or TEs, for example). If Hill is even a high RB2 for more than just one season, he is a player that teams could start, and offer a relative lineup advantage compared to other the RB2s from other rosters in different leagues.
They don't have to be top ten running backs every year. The problem is that Hill has a very low chance to be a top ten running back this year. He has a very low chance of being a top ten running back in 2015. He has a very low chance of being a top ten running back in 2016.
1) Because in EVERY LEAGUE, somebody will have McCoy, and somebody will have Charles, and somebody will have Peterson. In EVERY SINGLE LEAGUE, somebody last year had THE breakout player at their position, whether it was Foles, Moreno, Antonio Brown, Julius Thomas or the Kansas City defense. Just because you need to outscore the team with the 24th best running back, doesn't mean that drafting the 23rd best running back is a good option.
2) I don't want to be better than the five teams that are starting the worst RB2s in the league, either. That's not an advantage. If I want an advantage, I need to be better than more than half of the teams at the position. So in a league that starts two RBs, the least useful guy that is actually helpful to your team each week isn't RB24, it's RB18. Drafting a guy whose upside - even from the more optimistic posters in here - is RB12 doesn't give you much of an advantage. Having a high degree of confidence in him being "top 30", as has been posited in here, doesn't do anything at all for me.
3) Most of us play in leagues where you submit a lineup each week. I'm not a big believer in "consistency scores" or whatever people are calling them these days, but if they exist, then a touchdown dependent committee back is first on my list of inconsistent guys. They can absolutely crush your team if you miss out on their big weeks, then chase those points on the bad weeks. If Hill's not the primary receiving back, and he's unlikely to receive huge carry numbers in any given week, then he's highly dependent on touchdowns or on breaking a big run.
4) The distribution of his big games matters. It's possible that Hill looks like a weak RB3 the first half of the season, and by the time he turns it on, you don't trust him. It's equally possible that he looks like a stud the first half of the season, then tails off. Then at the end of the year, when you're excited about his RB2 season ending totals, he was actually completely worthless to you. Or maybe he has good weeks and bad, totally at random. That's a tough guy to start in the Superbowl. Building your team around guys like this is like screwing yourself in advance.
5) A boom/bust pick like Freeman, West, or Mason won't hurt you like that. If they're not the starter, they're not the starter. It's not hard to leave a RB on the bench if their NFL head coach is doing the same thing. Of course, if you take one of them, you might get a zero from your pick - but you won't get a zero at the RB2 position. Unless you have some kind of unusual roster restrictions in place, most leagues allow you to have multiple running backs. A boom/bust guy has a better chance of distancing himself from the pack in your fantasy teams' stable, while a committee back may not.
But perhaps the most important reason is this: You SHOULD project more than 10 guys to put up top ten running back numbers. Because there are a lot more than ten guys who could do it this year. The top ten backs picks in redrafts all have a good shot, sure, but last year's top twelve included guys like Chris Johnson, Fred Jackson and Ryan Mathews. And LeVeon Bell and Reggie Bush were both top ten in PPG. Doug Martin and CJ Spiller arguably would have been top ten if they hadn't gotten hurt. Knowshon falls out of the top ten, but Montee Ball is right back in there in the projections. All of those guys should be projected to do better than Hill with a healthy Gio on the team. Every single one of them.
Danny Woodhead was RB19 in non PPR leagues last year, but he was basically garbage (in PPR leagues, it's a different story). He was RB27 in PPG, and he finished ahead of several guys who would have easily outscored him if they hadn't gotten hurt. I don't want a guy with RB19 ceiling. I don't even want a guy with RB12 ceiling. There are a LOT of guys with top ten RB ceiling. Hill isn't one of them.
That doesn't make him worthless, but it gives him a very specific kind of value - safe, consistent scoring for a team that is weak at running back but strong everywhere else, or a team that has several boom/bust options but needs a plan B, for example. Just understand what you're getting when you draft him.