Jeremy Hill, RB (LVR) (1 Viewer)

barista said:

Who practiced this week with 1st team? Split?

Click to expand...

This would actually have been useful information the past few days

Sabertooth said:

Hill is a very good player in a mediocre situation. Gio is too. Fred made some good points but in the end, his conclusion was probably off. Hill has only gained value this season. He showed he can play in the NFL.

Click to expand...

This is an important point, imo.

Supposedly Hill's value was going to go down this year. That didn't happen. He would have been a better pick than Freeman at this point, as his value has appreciated far more (Freeman has probably lost value, as he has done little with what opportunity he has had).

One issue I have is with the refrain, if you build a stable of low upside RBs like Hill, blah, blah, blah, as if owners routinely draft all of ANY kind or type RB. IMO, this is a straw man critique, and doesn't reflect reality.

Also, as far as I can tell, all you have to be to constitute a high upside RB, as distinguished from low upside, is be a RB on a team that doesn't have a young, talented, entrenched starter. This completely elevates situation over talent. Speaking figuratively and metaphorically, you could do this with a monkey and a dartboard (just leave off RBs like Hill, and only let the monkey throw darts at RBs that fit the "high upside" criteria).

A pathway for Hill to become more valuable in the future (since I'm more concerned with dynasty valuation) is to receive a higher percentage of carries in the RBBC rotation than he has had as a rookie. This is certainly possible. Hill has already flashed the potential to be a better pure runner than Bernard. He has two 150+ yard games in his two career starts (Bernard has cracked 100 once in 25 games and 9 career starts). How the distribution was in the first half of this season, when Hill averaged 7 carries per game, will very possibly be different in the future, it won't necessarily entail a wait until 2017 or beyond. When Bernard was out, Hill averaged 21 carries in three games, and (without referencing) about 14-15 carries per game since Bernard returned. This potential upside, may be a contributing factor in Freeman being routed by Hill at almost a 90% to 10% ratio in the recent dynasty poll.

Lastly, and on a related point, why is Freeman being routed in the dynasty poll? Does Fred just know more than everybody else? Not an attack, but the great disparity does beg the question. More likely, imo, is the people voting are familiar with their league structure and individual needs, in a way he couldn't possibly be aware of, so the roster poison advice is too general to have relevance to many (though it may be in his particular league structure).

That's great. So does anyone know who is going to start today or have any insight into today's game?

They seem to be rotating fairly regularly. It's not just drive by drive or situational or fourth quarter or two minute drill stuff. Hard to say what the goal line package will ultimately look like but so far that's been a split, too. Hill even had four catches last week. Hill had more touches for the first time last week, which might be the start of a trend, or might just indicate a 60/40 split. We should know a little more after this week, but by then it may be too late. I don't think either is a great play, but either one could go off, too. Just a total guessing game right now. If I had to pick one I might pick gio just because the steelers got their inside linebacker back this week and the Bengals may try to work outside more. But shezier is hardly elite, so who knows.

Good luck this week with whatever you choose.

Houston turmOiler said:

That's great. So does anyone know who is going to start today or have any insight into today's game?

Click to expand...

It really isn't important who gets the start, and it's pretty much impossible to know in advance how the touches are going to be split. Too many variables to accurately predict.

Yeah thanks. Got 4 backs with similar loads/issues for 1 spot (Hill, Gio, Boom, Lamar Miller). Talent wise I like Hill best to start, just looking for any weekly insight. Because the situation sucks...

I don't have any information about the distribution of carries in practice this week.

For the record, past two weeks:

Game 11

Bernard - 17 carries and 2 receptions

Hill - 18 carries and 1 reception

Game 12

Bernard - 10 carries and 1 reception

Hill - 13 carries and 4 receptions

on the year, Bernard has a 4.0 yard per carry average (4.1 in 2013), 5 rushing and 0 receiving TDs in 9 games (5 & 3 last year).

Hill has a 4.7 average, 6 rushing and 0 receiving TDs in 12 games.

bostonfred said:

humpback said:

BF, you make some good points at times, but it's drowned out by your inability to be objective. Very EBF-like.

Click to expand...

It probably feels that way because you're entrenched on the opposite side. But I was the first one in here saying he looked good in relief of gio, I immediately pointed out that he could get a huge workload and was the first to cite the preseason game where they ran him more than anyone thought was wise to get him used to an nfl workload, and I have repeatedly said I think he's very talented. I don't know what you want me to say that's more objective than that when the rest if the stuff I've said about him has been dead on accurate so far. Maybe I should have called him a top ten FF rb the week he made his first nfl start against a middle of the road defense, but I still think in the long run youre better off starting known studs in that spot.The big difference, though, is that i haven't been back here saying, humpback, you're wrong. I'm not here to argue with people and tell them who's wrong and get board cred. I haven't gone back and quoted some if the statements you guys have made in this thread. I'm not fighting, I'm defending my point.

Once again, you choose to make a personal comment out of this, just like the last couple posters who have said I was being dishonest or criticizing me for not currently playing in as many dynasty leagues as they do. This is the worst of the shark pool right here, when people try to pile on opposing view points and attack each other.

I appreciate your backhanded compliment, though. It's more than any of the other guys have said.

Click to expand...

Not even close. If you've read my posts, I've been pretty consistent in my take on Hill. He is far from a sure thing, I don't think he is some super stud that is going to lead your team to fantasy gold, and I don't consider him a plug and play start. Where I disagree with you is in your insistence that Hill has a low upside, his path to a starting job is blocked for a long time, and that he's roster poison. Ignoring the counter arguments to those for a moment, I think what he has shown on the field this year should have put most of that talk to rest.

I'm not making it personal, nor is that a backhanded compliment. You do make some good points- however IMO some people skip over them because you continue to repeat bad ones. Just my opinion, ignore it if you wish, but it isn't a dig.

A good example is this one you wrote: "Hill probably helped a lot of teams with big games while gio was out, but yesterday's stinker could have derailed your team." Do you really not see how silly that is? He probably helped a lot of teams with multiple really good games, but one bad game (which I pointed out wasn't really that bad) could have derailed your team. Does not compute.

Here's another: "they almost certainly paid a high price for two good games in the middle of the season". Simply incorrect- he had more than 2 good games, the really good ones were in the later part of the fantasy season, and most importantly they almost certainly did not pay a high price. His redraft ADP was ~RB 40, and he was generally an early 2nd round rookie pick in dynasty leagues.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.

As far as I can tell, all you have to be to constitute a high upside RB, as distinguished from low upside, is be a RB on a team that doesn't have a young, talented, entrenched starter. This completely elevates situation over talent. Speaking figuratively and metaphorically, you could do this with a monkey and a dartboard (just leave off RBs like Hill, and only let the monkey throw darts at RBs that fit the "high upside" criteria).

Click to expand...

the thing that kills hill isn't just the entrenched starter. I liked tre mason better than hill despite Stacy looking like a young entrenched starter. The problems with hill were that the Bengals wanted someone to complement bernard, and were vocal about that for years. His best thing, scoring touchdowns, was something gio also seemed to be good at. Gio clearly seemed to be the better receiver. The Bengals wanted a split and hill was going to get the worse end if it, making him a touchdown dependent, high variance start.

Making the opportunity worse was the fact that the Bengals gave a ton of weapons the passing game who are featured at different times throughout the year. A healthy aj green, Marvin jones, sanu, eifert, go and gresham were going to make up a large part of an offensive pie that was capped by Dalton and the afc north defenses. Hill would have to be absolutely incredible to become the featured player in that offense. And he had character issues to overcome, too.

If there's a formula, it might be quality of the opportunity times likelihood of siezing the opportunity. Situation is rarely the only factor in opportunity size (see also: Toby Gerhart, Montee Ball, etc). Talent plays into both size and likelihood of opportunity, so it's always very important. But looking at talent alone is just as lazy as looking at situation alone, but it works often enough that its easy to behind that mantra and pretend you're doing the right thing. I outlined lots of reasons preseason why this one is different, and you've respectfully come back with your monkey dart comparison, which is consistent with my expectations in this debate.

humpback said:

bostonfred said:

humpback said:

BF, you make some good points at times, but it's drowned out by your inability to be objective. Very EBF-like.

Click to expand...

It probably feels that way because you're entrenched on the opposite side. But I was the first one in here saying he looked good in relief of gio, I immediately pointed out that he could get a huge workload and was the first to cite the preseason game where they ran him more than anyone thought was wise to get him used to an nfl workload, and I have repeatedly said I think he's very talented. I don't know what you want me to say that's more objective than that when the rest if the stuff I've said about him has been dead on accurate so far. Maybe I should have called him a top ten FF rb the week he made his first nfl start against a middle of the road defense, but I still think in the long run youre better off starting known studs in that spot.The big difference, though, is that i haven't been back here saying, humpback, you're wrong. I'm not here to argue with people and tell them who's wrong and get board cred. I haven't gone back and quoted some if the statements you guys have made in this thread. I'm not fighting, I'm defending my point.

Once again, you choose to make a personal comment out of this, just like the last couple posters who have said I was being dishonest or criticizing me for not currently playing in as many dynasty leagues as they do. This is the worst of the shark pool right here, when people try to pile on opposing view points and attack each other.

I appreciate your backhanded compliment, though. It's more than any of the other guys have said.

Click to expand...

Not even close. If you've read my posts, I've been pretty consistent in my take on Hill. He is far from a sure thing, I don't think he is some super stud that is going to lead your team to fantasy gold, and I don't consider him a plug and play start. Where I disagree with you is in your insistence that Hill has a low upside, his path to a starting job is blocked for a long time, and that he's roster poison. Ignoring the counter arguments to those for a moment, I think what he has shown on the field this year should have put most of that talk to rest.I'm not making it personal, nor is that a backhanded compliment. You do make some good points- however IMO some people skip over them because you continue to repeat bad ones. Just my opinion, ignore it if you wish, but it isn't a dig.

A good example is this one you wrote: "Hill probably helped a lot of teams with big games while gio was out, but yesterday's stinker could have derailed your team." Do you really not see how silly that is? He probably helped a lot of teams with multiple really good games, but one bad game (which I pointed out wasn't really that bad) could have derailed your team. Does not compute.

Here's another: "they almost certainly paid a high price for two good games in the middle of the season". Simply incorrect- he had more than 2 good games, the really good ones were in the later part of the fantasy season, and most importantly they almost certainly did not pay a high price. His redraft ADP was ~RB 40, and he was generally an early 2nd round rookie pick in dynasty leagues.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.

Click to expand...

great examples, thanks. So to clarify, gio was hurt in the 7th, then missed the Bengals 8th, 9th and 10th games, but that's not the middle of the season. Hill has 13 rushes for 40 yards and 4 catches for 12 yards in week 13, the first week that was an unambiguous split after gio returned to an unknown role in week 12, and that didn't hurt anybody's season. Bear in mind that the roster poison line you've mocked for months has always been about this exact scenario, where he has a couple good weeks, people start him when they otherwise might not have, and it burns them. I can't mention that it happened, though, because I'm biased and you're not.

And an "early second round" rookie pick does not constitute an "early pick" in any way, despite this being arguably the deepest receiver draft in history and lots of other good players at qb, te and rb going after him.

Just to make this clear, I'm unable to be objective, and these are your go to examples as proof. Thank you for clarifying.

Looks to me that after today Hill will be the RB to own in Cincinnati.

bostonfred said:

As far as I can tell, all you have to be to constitute a high upside RB, as distinguished from low upside, is be a RB on a team that doesn't have a young, talented, entrenched starter. This completely elevates situation over talent. Speaking figuratively and metaphorically, you could do this with a monkey and a dartboard (just leave off RBs like Hill, and only let the monkey throw darts at RBs that fit the "high upside" criteria).

Click to expand...

the thing that kills hill isn't just the entrenched starter. I liked tre mason better than hill despite Stacy looking like a young entrenched starter.The problems with hill were that the Bengals wanted someone to complement bernard, and were vocal about that for years. His best thing, scoring touchdowns, was something gio also seemed to be good at. Gio clearly seemed to be the better receiver. The Bengals wanted a split and hill was going to get the worse end if it, making him a touchdown dependent, high variance start.

Making the opportunity worse was the fact that the Bengals gave a ton of weapons the passing game who are featured at different times throughout the year. A healthy aj green, Marvin jones, sanu, eifert, go and gresham were going to make up a large part of an offensive pie that was capped by Dalton and the afc north defenses. Hill would have to be absolutely incredible to become the featured player in that offense. And he had character issues to overcome, too.

If there's a formula, it might be quality of the opportunity times likelihood of siezing the opportunity. Situation is rarely the only factor in opportunity size (see also: Toby Gerhart, Montee Ball, etc). Talent plays into both size and likelihood of opportunity, so it's always very important. But looking at talent alone is just as lazy as looking at situation alone, but it works often enough that its easy to behind that mantra and pretend you're doing the right thing. I outlined lots of reasons preseason why this one is different, and you've respectfully come back with your monkey dart comparison, which is consistent with my expectations in this debate.

Click to expand...

To what do you attribute the fact that the RB who's value is "killed" is routing the RB you endorsed ahead of him before the season, at about a 90% to 10% ratio in the dynasty poll? Whatever you or I think about Hill, the evidence seems clear Hill has become more valuable this season, contrary to what you predicted. Would you agree that your prediction that his value would go down this year has not gone down like you expected?

Why such a disparity in the poll? Is it possible, that the vast majority of those polled, knowing the specifics of their league structure and team needs, have come to the conclusion that, not only Hill isn't roster posion compared to Freeman, but is in fact far more valuable. Can you consider the possibility that your roster poison advice just isn't relevant to the vast majority of dynasty owners, and you may have severely miscalculated what does and doesn't constitute roster poison?

I liked Mason better, too, and drafted him in the one league I had the opportunity to with Hill still on the board. In my experience, Mason went first, and may not have been an option for many people who picked Hill (though I could be off there, most of my drafts were more than half a year ago). A key difference between Bernard (2nd) and Stacy (5th) was/is pedigree. Stacy was far more vulnerable to losing his job outright than Bernard.

I'm not sure what you meant by the best thing Hill does is score TDs. Is that a backhanded compliment? Hill is a great runner in general, not just TD scorer. Two thirds of his only three career starts went for 150+ yards, that must be a historically rare feat? That is common ground between us, you have said he is talented. But saying scoring is what he does best in this context is a little ambiguous. He is a good RB, period, not just scorer. For more ammo on that, the SEC has had its fair share of good RBs (Lacy was a rookie last year, etc.), and Hill set the SEC mark for highest yard per carry average in a season (200+ carries qualifier?) at just under 7 yards a pop, a record set by Garrison Hearst that stood for about three decades. There is a non-zero possibility (and IMO it is considerably higher) that Hill ends up being the better pure runner than Bernard, which I'm not sure if you are accounting for (if so, it isn't obvious from the general tenor of your argument in the thread), and ends up with 250+ carries as soon as next year, and Bernard can still get plenty of touches by making up for it with receptions.

There is a school of thought that CIN may want to spell Bernard and not have him dominate carries (like he did at the beginning of the season, but hasn't since returning - which may be because he is still recovering?) in the future. One reason for thinking that was using a second round pick on a RB (a pick typically not spent on an intended career reserve or goal line back, especially the way RB currency has been devalued recently). Bernard already missed three games. He also missed two games in 2012 at North Carolina, and parts of others with various shoulder and lower body injuries, and tore his ACL and was a medical redshirt in 2010.

Agree to disagree about Gresham (TD today, notwithstanding). Even without Eifert virtually the entire season, he entered the game around #20. He doesn't scare anybody, he just doesn't. Even if you use the cumulative argument, NOBODY that was inclined to draft Hill otherwise, would not draft him once they realized Gresham was on the roster. IMO, the point would be better made with other players (Green, Bernard), to me it seems like trying to hard and counterproductively undermines your argument. Also, I think this is overstated in general, we wouldn't need to look hard to find RBs that weren't roster posion that were on teams with, in some cases several other talented skill position players.

There are a spectrum and continuum of possibilities where Hill could succeed and not be "roster poison", without him needing to become the featured player in the offense. It isn't that black and white, you are overstating things. And I would say that in general, there is a lack of nuance in your participation in the thread. Ten roster poison posts will be reeled off, you are reminded and prompted not in certain (possibly many) situations, you acknowledge and concede the point (eminently reasonable), than hammer ten straight roster poison posts, are prompted, reminded again, you say, of course, I'm not saying in all cases (with an implied, DUH! ), than reel off another ten straight roster poison posts, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. Its clearly a real bee in your bonnet, and I think another thing that undermines your overall argument. It is an extremist position. In my experience (being in more than one league), it just isn't relevant to most teams/leagues, to say that he is "roster poison".

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. You said you don't really scout or even try to (at least in the instance you cited with Freeman). A big part of your "evaluation" was that ATL didn't have an obvious long term starter. Obviously point taken there, but I suspect one contributing factor to the disparity in the poll between Hill and Freeman, most are taking it as a given that the situation going forward could be very fluid. Freeman hasn't shown much, and there are many possibilities in which he never becomes a starter or even figures prominently in a RBBC. Now you have a RB that isn't even in as good a situation as Hill, and is by your own admission not as talented. You also cited three down skill set (and that coaches said good things about him - after laughing at jurb or CSTU for volunteering coach speak on Hill ), which could be a spurious reason. By that, I mean in a lot of cases, three down skill set is necessary but far from sufficient. No doubt, many RBs can block and catch but are mediocre runners, or at least, not nearly as talented as Hill.

You gave more reasons with Hill than Freeman. I specifically mentioned leaving out Hill with the monkey and the dartboard ANALOGY, which is a common figure of speech for a primarily random process. You admitted not really scouting Freeman, that is what I was referring to. You seem to put a lot of stock in Freeman not having a lot in front of him, but IMO not sufficiently taking into account how quickly that can change (see Stacy). That is what I mean by random, or the monkey and the dart board.

Responding to a neutral post not even addressed to you with a loaded term like spin, because somebody thinks a top 15ish RB might hold some value (and again, you are on the wrong side of the poll by a 90% to 10% margin last time I checked), and than hypocritically playing the martyr, persecution complex card (remember, you entered the thread with an extremely ridiculing post with a subtext implying anybody that thought differently is a complete idiot, and than constantly complain about being ridiculed), is par for the course and what I've come to expect from you in the thread as well.

bostonfred said:

humpback said:

bostonfred said:

humpback said:

BF, you make some good points at times, but it's drowned out by your inability to be objective. Very EBF-like.

Click to expand...

It probably feels that way because you're entrenched on the opposite side. But I was the first one in here saying he looked good in relief of gio, I immediately pointed out that he could get a huge workload and was the first to cite the preseason game where they ran him more than anyone thought was wise to get him used to an nfl workload, and I have repeatedly said I think he's very talented. I don't know what you want me to say that's more objective than that when the rest if the stuff I've said about him has been dead on accurate so far. Maybe I should have called him a top ten FF rb the week he made his first nfl start against a middle of the road defense, but I still think in the long run youre better off starting known studs in that spot.The big difference, though, is that i haven't been back here saying, humpback, you're wrong. I'm not here to argue with people and tell them who's wrong and get board cred. I haven't gone back and quoted some if the statements you guys have made in this thread. I'm not fighting, I'm defending my point.

Once again, you choose to make a personal comment out of this, just like the last couple posters who have said I was being dishonest or criticizing me for not currently playing in as many dynasty leagues as they do. This is the worst of the shark pool right here, when people try to pile on opposing view points and attack each other.

I appreciate your backhanded compliment, though. It's more than any of the other guys have said.

Click to expand...

Not even close. If you've read my posts, I've been pretty consistent in my take on Hill. He is far from a sure thing, I don't think he is some super stud that is going to lead your team to fantasy gold, and I don't consider him a plug and play start. Where I disagree with you is in your insistence that Hill has a low upside, his path to a starting job is blocked for a long time, and that he's roster poison. Ignoring the counter arguments to those for a moment, I think what he has shown on the field this year should have put most of that talk to rest.I'm not making it personal, nor is that a backhanded compliment. You do make some good points- however IMO some people skip over them because you continue to repeat bad ones. Just my opinion, ignore it if you wish, but it isn't a dig.

A good example is this one you wrote: "Hill probably helped a lot of teams with big games while gio was out, but yesterday's stinker could have derailed your team." Do you really not see how silly that is? He probably helped a lot of teams with multiple really good games, but one bad game (which I pointed out wasn't really that bad) could have derailed your team. Does not compute.

Here's another: "they almost certainly paid a high price for two good games in the middle of the season". Simply incorrect- he had more than 2 good games, the really good ones were in the later part of the fantasy season, and most importantly they almost certainly did not pay a high price. His redraft ADP was ~RB 40, and he was generally an early 2nd round rookie pick in dynasty leagues.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.

Click to expand...

great examples, thanks. So to clarify, gio was hurt in the 7th, then missed the Bengals 8th, 9th and 10th games, but that's not the middle of the season.Hill has 13 rushes for 40 yards and 4 catches for 12 yards in week 13, the first week that was an unambiguous split after gio returned to an unknown role in week 12, and that didn't hurt anybody's season. Bear in mind that the roster poison line you've mocked for months has always been about this exact scenario, where he has a couple good weeks, people start him when they otherwise might not have, and it burns them. I can't mention that it happened, though, because I'm biased and you're not.

And an "early second round" rookie pick does not constitute an "early pick" in any way, despite this being arguably the deepest receiver draft in history and lots of other good players at qb, te and rb going after him.

Just to make this clear, I'm unable to be objective, and these are your go to examples as proof. Thank you for clarifying.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that weeks 8-13 aren't towards the end of the fantasy football season?

I didn't say it didn't hurt anybody's season. I'm just pointing out that he almost certainly helped far more teams than he hurt during that stretch. It's disingenuous to put more weight on his one "bad" game (which wasn't that bad in ppr) than on his two great ones, especially considering he was started more often in his good games than in his bad one. The roster poison line is just as absurd as it's been from day one, just like your "poll" with a tiny sample size is. Relevant starting data is readily available, but it isn't surprising that you choose to ignore it since it doesn't support your position.

In redraft, I pointed out how he was ~RB 40, which you conveniently didn't address. In rookie drafts, no, an early 2nd round pick is not a huge investment, especially when we're only talking about his production in part of his first season. Do you think most dynasty owners expect more out of their 2nd round rookie pick than they've gotten out of Hill this year?

You're welcome.

Alex P Keaton said:

Sabertooth said:

Hill is a very good player in a mediocre situation. Gio is too. Fred made some good points but in the end, his conclusion was probably off. Hill has only gained value this season. He showed he can play in the NFL.

Click to expand...

How was fred wrong? The situation played out exactly as he predicted.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Exactly, especially the part about Hill's value going down this year. Wait, what?

* Being right explains why before the season, Freeman and Hill had similar value, and now he is losing 10% to 90% in the dynasty poll. Eerily, spookily accurate on your part. Hill's value has plummeted, exactly as you foresaw.

Rotoworld:

Jeremy Hill rushed eight times for 46 yards and caught three passes for 21 yards in Sunday's Week 14 loss to the Steelers.
Gio Bernard started the game, but that was in name only. At halftime, Hill was out-touching Bernard 8-3 and out-playing him badly once again. The game got away from the Bengals in the second half, but it's clear that Hill is the back they prefer -- no matter what is said in the media and off the field. Hill, who is now averaging 15.6 touches over the last three games, is a good bet for something in that range at Cleveland in Week 15. He's a solid RB2.

Dec 7 - 4:34 PM

Click to expand...

It would be wonderful for ONE of them to emerge! Right now I can't play Gio or Hill.

"I don't know what were yelling about!!!" - Brick

Gio played most of the 2nd half. Not sure why given Hill looked noticeably better

Shockingly, I am thoroughly unimpressed with Hugh Jackson.

Yeah, not serious.

Because people see what they want to see, and hence, all these incredibly long, boring posts trying to prove one is better than the other.

Bob Magaw said:

Exactly, especially the part about Hill's value going down this year. Wait, what?

Click to expand...

See what you can get for him today and let me know. If his value really is way up from the offseason the way you think, you should be able to get a first for him, easy. People were drafting him with an early second or late first, so you ought to even get a mid first for him, but a late first should be easy. If you can get a first round pick for him right now, let us know, and let us know if you take it, since his value has sky rocketed.

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

bostonfred said:

Bob Magaw said:

Exactly, especially the part about Hill's value going down this year. Wait, what?

Click to expand...

See what you can get for him today and let me know. If his value really is way up from the offseason the way you think, you should be able to get a first for him, easy. People were drafting him with an early second or late first, so you ought to even get a mid first for him, but a late first should be easy. If you can get a first round pick for him right now, let us know, and let us know if you take it, since his value has sky rocketed.

Click to expand...

What leagues allow trades right now?

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

Bob Magaw said:

Exactly, especially the part about Hill's value going down this year. Wait, what?

Click to expand...

See what you can get for him today and let me know. If his value really is way up from the offseason the way you think, you should be able to get a first for him, easy. People were drafting him with an early second or late first, so you ought to even get a mid first for him, but a late first should be easy. If you can get a first round pick for him right now, let us know, and let us know if you take it, since his value has sky rocketed.

Click to expand...

What leagues allow trades right now?

Click to expand...

I don't know some I'm not in as many leagues as some of you but a lot of people voted in a poll about who they'd rather have between two players and I was led to believe that it was pretty binding. Are you suggesting that their votes weren't representative of any actual trade market?

Bob Magaw said:

Exactly, especially the part about Hill's value going down this year. Wait, what?

* Being right explains why before the season, Freeman and Hill had similar value, and now he is losing 10% to 90% in the dynasty poll. Eerily, spookily accurate on your part. Hill's value has plummeted, exactly as you foresaw.

Click to expand...

Freeman and Hill never had similar value.

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Click to expand...

What were their respective ADPs at the time? I was in some leagues where Mason, Freeman and Hill went close together.

Anyway, the larger point holds. I think Freeman's value has gone down since the season started. Fred cited as a reason to not draft Hill, his value would go down, and you could get him cheaper next year. That simply hasn't come true.

* Three of the five dynasty leagues I'm in, the other two have rules unusual enough to make RB draft data not very representative. Not covering Sankey and Hyde, they were typically off the board already at this point. First two leagues took place more or less right after the NFL draft, third was much later. That was more recent in my memory, and also the best example of Freeman and Hill being taken close together, in my drafts. Again, all this means is Hill's value may have gone up relative to Freeman (and Freeman's down relative to Hill) even more than I realized. Thanks for helping make that point.

League 1 (14 teams)

1.11 - Freeman

2.3 - Mason

2.6 - Hill

League 2 (16 teams)

1.10 - Mason

1.14 - Freeman

2.9 - Hill

League 3 (14 teams)

1.12 - Mason

1.14 - Freeman

2.1 - Hill

* I'd echo what humpback noted, I don't view these as particularly "high" picks for a RB. He was the 15th, 20th and 25th player taken in the above drafts.

Bob Magaw said:

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Click to expand...

What were their respective ADPs at the time. I was in some leagues where Mason, Freeman and Hill went close together.Anyway, the larger point holds. I think Freeman's value has gone down since the season started. Fred cited as a reason to not draft Hill, his value would go down, and you could get him cheaper next year. That simply hasn't come true.

Click to expand...

They were. Hill went 2 picks ahead of Freeman in 1 of my leagues. Freeman went 1 pick ahead of Hill in the other.

Alex P Keaton said:

Sabertooth said:

Hill is a very good player in a mediocre situation. Gio is too. Fred made some good points but in the end, his conclusion was probably off. Hill has only gained value this season. He showed he can play in the NFL.

Click to expand...

How was fred wrong? The situation played out exactly as he predicted.

Click to expand...

he said his value would decrease. It hasn't.

Bob Magaw said:

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Click to expand...

What were their respective ADPs at the time? I was in some leagues where Mason, Freeman and Hill went close together.

Anyway, the larger point holds. I think Freeman's value has gone down since the season started. Fred cited as a reason to not draft Hill, his value would go down, and you could get him cheaper next year. That simply hasn't come true.

* Three of the five dynasty leagues I'm in, the other two have rules unusual enough to make RB draft data not very representative. Not covering Sankey and Hyde, they were typically off the board already at this point. First two leagues took place more or less right after the NFL draft, third was much later. That was more recent in my memory, and also the best example of Freeman and Hill being taken close together, in my drafts. Again, all this means is Hill's value may have gone up relative to Freeman (and Freeman's down relative to Hill) even more than I realized. Thanks for helping make that point.

League 1 (14 teams)

1.11 - Freeman

2.3 - Mason

2.6 - Hill

League 2 (16 teams)

1.10 - Mason

1.14 - Freeman

2.9 - Hill

League 3 (14 teams)

1.12 - Mason

1.14 - Freeman

2.1 - Hill

* I'd echo what humpback noted, I don't view these as particularly "high" picks for a RB. He was the 15th, 20th and 25th player taken in the above drafts.

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks Bob. Appreciate you sharing these items. I'm amazed that people were drafting Freeman anywhere near Hill. But reality isn't up for debate!

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Click to expand...

What were their respective ADPs at the time? I was in some leagues where Mason, Freeman and Hill went close together.

Anyway, the larger point holds. I think Freeman's value has gone down since the season started. Fred cited as a reason to not draft Hill, his value would go down, and you could get him cheaper next year. That simply hasn't come true.

* Three of the five dynasty leagues I'm in, the other two have rules unusual enough to make RB draft data not very representative. Not covering Sankey and Hyde, they were typically off the board already at this point. First two leagues took place more or less right after the NFL draft, third was much later. That was more recent in my memory, and also the best example of Freeman and Hill being taken close together, in my drafts. Again, all this means is Hill's value may have gone up relative to Freeman (and Freeman's down relative to Hill) even more than I realized. Thanks for helping make that point.

League 1 (14 teams)

1.11 - Freeman

2.3 - Mason

2.6 - Hill

League 2 (16 teams)

1.10 - Mason

1.14 - Freeman

2.9 - Hill

League 3 (14 teams)

1.12 - Mason

1.14 - Freeman

2.1 - Hill

* I'd echo what humpback noted, I don't view these as particularly "high" picks for a RB. He was the 15th, 20th and 25th player taken in the above drafts.

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks Bob. Appreciate you sharing these items. I'm amazed that people were drafting Freeman anywhere near Hill. But reality isn't up for debate!

Click to expand...

In one of my drafts Freeman went 1.06. He almost always went in front of Hill in my leagues.

Why are 90% of the posts in this thread about Hill vs Freeman from Atlanta? I can understand some speculation chat in May when they don't even have the pads in yet, but guys, it's frigging December, and it's the FF playoffs, and no one cares about the Falcons, unless you're streaming a defense against them.

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

Exactly, especially the part about Hill's value going down this year. Wait, what?

* Being right explains why before the season, Freeman and Hill had similar value, and now he is losing 10% to 90% in the dynasty poll. Eerily, spookily accurate on your part. Hill's value has plummeted, exactly as you foresaw.

Click to expand...

Freeman and Hill never had similar value.

Click to expand...

Freeman's ADP was 1.08 and Hill was 2.05. Seems reversed now to say the least

A relative valuation question, tied to dynasty strategy, sorry for belaboring the point.

We return you to your normal programming.

Hill reminds me of Trent Richardson in Richardson's rookie year.

He never seemed to get much of a real opportunity against Pgh today. The "AJ Green" show was on display. It worked, sort of. But Cincy was sure one-dimensional after Ben found his targets, too.

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Click to expand...

I'm in four dynasty leagues and Freeman went before Hill in 3 out of 4 leagues. In most Freeman was a late first round pick and Hill and early to mid-second. The one "outlier" was where Hill went at 1.06 and Freeman 1.11.

bostonfred said:

Doc oc, if you think hill has shown himself to be a high upside dynasty play then I guess you don't understand a thing I've said.

Click to expand...

Well I didn't say he was a "high upside" dynasty play, I disagreed with you for calling him a "low upside" RB (there's a subtle difference there). What he did during Gio's absence to me show he's not "low upside" based on how I define "upside". His upside is clearly not low imo. I also think he's shown he's capable of pushing Gio aside eventually. It's starting to swing that way, and if that happens once again it would be hard to label him as a "low upside" running back.

I apologize if you feel you were personally attacked, in part at least, by me saying that your keeping track of Hill's starts were biased in nature - but it's just the feeling I get, especially when you dig in your heel's and still cling to the position that Hill is "roster poison".

I honestly can't see anyone making that stance and not being a bit disingenuous in doing so - I do understand the basis of your theory from it's outset, although I think many of the reasons behind that theory were a stretch (i.e. all of the Bengals other weapons, like Sanu and Greschem, as if many teams don't have that level, or better, talent) - and I think at this point it would be time to revaluate my stance, but you still seem entrenched in it.

Dr. Octopus said:

bostonfred said:

Doc oc, if you think hill has shown himself to be a high upside dynasty play then I guess you don't understand a thing I've said.

Click to expand...

Well I didn't say he was a "high upside" dynasty play, I disagreed with you for calling him a "low upside" RB (there's a subtle difference there). What he did during Gio's absence to me show he's not "low upside" based on how I define "upside". His upside is clearly not low imo. I also think he's shown he's capable of pushing Gio aside eventually. It's starting to swing that way, and if that happens once again it would be hard to label him as a "low upside" running back.

I apologize if you feel you were personally attacked, in part at least, by me saying that your keeping track of Hill's starts were biased in nature - but it's just the feeling I get, especially when you dig in your heel's and still cling to the position that Hill is "roster poison".

I honestly can't see anyone making that stance and not being a bit disingenuous in doing so - I do understand the basis of your theory from it's outset, although I think many of the reasons behind that theory were a stretch (i.e. all of the Bengals other weapons, like Sanu and Greschem, as if many teams don't have that level, or better, talent) - and I think at this point it would be time to revaluate my stance, but you still seem entrenched in it.

Click to expand...

His upside is clearly not low in terms of what type of RB he is. Hill is what Greg Cosell would define as a foundation RB, meaning an RB you can run your offense through. Someone that is built to endure high volume, can run in between the tackles but still has quickness, and on top of that he can be involved in the passing game. This is exactly the type of RB that can be fantasy gold. So if anyone is calling him low upside they must be basing that off his situation which is a fluid moving factor that can change at any time. You can argue his talent but in terms of what type of RB he is and potential role in the NFL he has tremendous upside.

I checked my nine leagues and Freeman went between 1.05 and 2.04. Hill went 1.12 to 2.07, and Hill went behind Freeman in all rookie drafts. Freeman was picked the highest in May and June, whereas Hill went before Freeman in three startups I did that took place in late July and August. This seems to match up with DLF ADP data where Freeman went earlier in the early mocks than what he did later on. Hill garnered some buzz during the summer because of all the writing about Hue Jackson's run heavy system and he started running ahead of BJGE as early as late May, whereas Freeman was listed as the number 4 RB as late as August and didn't generate any buzz during OTAs.

Saying today that Freeman was a better pick since he hasn't played well enough where you would consider starting him is like saying that buying stock in a company that has lost value was a good investment since you haven't been tempted to sell the stock. These are tradeable commodities and all data points to Hill's value having risen compared to Freeman since May, so clearly you would have increased the value of your roster by drafting Hill instead of Freeman. That might flip because of a number of factors over the next weeks, months or years, but the data says that Hill has been the more valuable pick thus far - especially considering their opportunity cost in May-August.

Dr. Octopus said:

Alex P Keaton said:

Bob Magaw said:

So his value did not go down as you predicted, correct?

Nice deflection/misdirection attempt, though.

* I'm not looking to trade him. Before the season, Hill's value was comparable to Freeman's. Look at where it is now. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, everybody can see their relative valuation has gone in dramatically different directions. Advocating Freeman was dynasty value poison, so far.

Click to expand...

Seriously, in what leagues did they have similar value? I'm shocked by this. I had them slotted about 8-10 picks apart in rookie drafts.

Click to expand...

I'm in four dynasty leagues and Freeman went before Hill in 3 out of 4 leagues. In most Freeman was a late first round pick and Hill and early to mid-second. The one "outlier" was where Hill went at 1.06 and Freeman 1.11.

Click to expand...

Hill went ahead of Freeman in 5 of my 9 dynasty leagues...by 5-6 spots in most of them. When Freeman went ahead of Hill, it was usually by 1-2 spots (at least in my leagues).

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split. What you guys are seeing on the field is that hill is totally pushing gio aside with his play.

What I see is the Bengals offense running through aj green this week, gresham getting short touchdowns and Dalton running a couple in, Dalton turning the ball over and limiting the Bengals opportunities... the offensive production for running backs is capped, and split.

What you guys see is that hill should be getting all of that production, and that he's so good he will make the whole team better.

But what I see is an offense that has only produced 11 rushing tds for running backs this season. And that is chopped in half by two backs splitting goal line carries so evenly that gio has five tds and hill has six - but only four in games that gio played.

What you guys see is that hill should totally be getting all those goal line opportunities.

What i see is that hill has been slightly more effective since gio returned from injury, but gio was substantially more effective and had significantly more touches in the games immediately prior to the injury. Gio's ypc is down since the injury, but they're still splitting carries almost exactly evenly, and splitting the limited goal line work. For example, it was gio on the field taking the play fake when Dalton ran it in this week.

What you guys see is a clear trend that hill is taking over.

I understand that you guys think you're right. I didn't believe it and I thought you guys were just being stubborn but you seem to really believe it in spite if all of the evidence to the contrary.

But so far the results match up completely with my predictions and interpretation of events, while you guys are telling he his value has only gone up and he's clearly taking over and I'm just being stubborn.

I believe that you believe that he's just getting more valuable after back to back rushing totals of 40 and 46, and zero hundred yard games with gio on the field, and just four touchdowns in the nine games where gio played, and absolutely no way you can confidently start him each week. But what I see is a guy who put up 87 yards and a td three weeks ago and made you think that maybe you can still start him even with gio back... only to watch him post back to back turds. And what you guys apparently see is a "top 15 running back" (although i don't think he still is after this week).

I.know you think I'm being stubborn here. But i honestly think you guys are delusional. There's no way you could trade this guy for more than you paid to get him unless you got him way later than adp.

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

Click to expand...

Come on... At least try to not telegraph your posts as shtick.

Dr. Octopus said:

bostonfred said:

Doc oc, if you think hill has shown himself to be a high upside dynasty play then I guess you don't understand a thing I've said.

Click to expand...

Well I didn't say he was a "high upside" dynasty play, I disagreed with you for calling him a "low upside" RB (there's a subtle difference there). What he did during Gio's absence to me show he's not "low upside" based on how I define "upside". His upside is clearly not low imo. I also think he's shown he's capable of pushing Gio aside eventually. It's starting to swing that way, and if that happens once again it would be hard to label him as a "low upside" running back.

I apologize if you feel you were personally attacked, in part at least, by me saying that your keeping track of Hill's starts were biased in nature - but it's just the feeling I get, especially when you dig in your heel's and still cling to the position that Hill is "roster poison".

I honestly can't see anyone making that stance and not being a bit disingenuous in doing so - I do understand the basis of your theory from it's outset, although I think many of the reasons behind that theory were a stretch (i.e. all of the Bengals other weapons, like Sanu and Greschem, as if many teams don't have that level, or better, talent) - and I think at this point it would be time to revaluate my stance, but you still seem entrenched in it.

Click to expand...

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

Click to expand...

Come on... At least try to not telegraph your posts as shtick.

Click to expand...

See what I mean? You honestly seem to believe that 8 rushes for 46 yards and 3 catches for 21 yards doesn't suck. It's like you live in a totally opposite universes where that doesn't suck because at least hos yards per carry were good.Try reading what I said again and just consider the possibility that this is just how things are. You know, like reality. Not like how you think reality ought to be despite all evidence so far to the contrary.

bostonfred said:

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

Click to expand...

Come on... At least try to not telegraph your posts as shtick.

Click to expand...

See what I mean? You honestly seem to believe that 8 rushes for 46 yards and 3 catches for 21 yards doesn't suck. It's like you live in a totally opposite universes where that doesn't suck because at least hos yards per carry were good.Try reading what I said again and just consider the possibility that this is just how things are. You know, like reality. Not like how you think reality ought to be despite all evidence so far to the contrary.

Click to expand...

In what universe is running for over 5 yds a pop sucking and how much DMT would one have to take to get there?

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split. What you guys are seeing on the field is that hill is totally pushing gio aside with his play.

What I see is the Bengals offense running through aj green this week, gresham getting short touchdowns and Dalton running a couple in, Dalton turning the ball over and limiting the Bengals opportunities... the offensive production for running backs is capped, and split.

What you guys see is that hill should be getting all of that production, and that he's so good he will make the whole team better.

But what I see is an offense that has only produced 11 rushing tds for running backs this season. And that is chopped in half by two backs splitting goal line carries so evenly that gio has five tds and hill has six - but only four in games that gio played.

What you guys see is that hill should totally be getting all those goal line opportunities.

What i see is that hill has been slightly more effective since gio returned from injury, but gio was substantially more effective and had significantly more touches in the games immediately prior to the injury. Gio's ypc is down since the injury, but they're still splitting carries almost exactly evenly, and splitting the limited goal line work. For example, it was gio on the field taking the play fake when Dalton ran it in this week.

What you guys see is a clear trend that hill is taking over.

I understand that you guys think you're right. I didn't believe it and I thought you guys were just being stubborn but you seem to really believe it in spite if all of the evidence to the contrary.

But so far the results match up completely with my predictions and interpretation of events, while you guys are telling he his value has only gone up and he's clearly taking over and I'm just being stubborn.

I believe that you believe that he's just getting more valuable after back to back rushing totals of 40 and 46, and zero hundred yard games with gio on the field, and just four touchdowns in the nine games where gio played, and absolutely no way you can confidently start him each week. But what I see is a guy who put up 87 yards and a td three weeks ago and made you think that maybe you can still start him even with gio back... only to watch him post back to back turds. And what you guys apparently see is a "top 15 running back" (although i don't think he still is after this week).

I.know you think I'm being stubborn here. But i honestly think you guys are delusional. There's no way you could trade this guy for more than you paid to get him unless you got him way later than adp.

Click to expand...

So much fail in one post. Bravo.

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split. What you guys are seeing on the field is that hill is totally pushing gio aside with his play.

What I see is the Bengals offense running through aj green this week, gresham getting short touchdowns and Dalton running a couple in, Dalton turning the ball over and limiting the Bengals opportunities... the offensive production for running backs is capped, and split.

What you guys see is that hill should be getting all of that production, and that he's so good he will make the whole team better.

But what I see is an offense that has only produced 11 rushing tds for running backs this season. And that is chopped in half by two backs splitting goal line carries so evenly that gio has five tds and hill has six - but only four in games that gio played.

What you guys see is that hill should totally be getting all those goal line opportunities.

What i see is that hill has been slightly more effective since gio returned from injury, but gio was substantially more effective and had significantly more touches in the games immediately prior to the injury. Gio's ypc is down since the injury, but they're still splitting carries almost exactly evenly, and splitting the limited goal line work. For example, it was gio on the field taking the play fake when Dalton ran it in this week.

What you guys see is a clear trend that hill is taking over.

I understand that you guys think you're right. I didn't believe it and I thought you guys were just being stubborn but you seem to really believe it in spite if all of the evidence to the contrary.

But so far the results match up completely with my predictions and interpretation of events, while you guys are telling he his value has only gone up and he's clearly taking over and I'm just being stubborn.

I believe that you believe that he's just getting more valuable after back to back rushing totals of 40 and 46, and zero hundred yard games with gio on the field, and just four touchdowns in the nine games where gio played, and absolutely no way you can confidently start him each week. But what I see is a guy who put up 87 yards and a td three weeks ago and made you think that maybe you can still start him even with gio back... only to watch him post back to back turds. And what you guys apparently see is a "top 15 running back" (although i don't think he still is after this week).

I.know you think I'm being stubborn here. But i honestly think you guys are delusional. There's no way you could trade this guy for more than you paid to get him unless you got him way later than adp.

Click to expand...

I thought we were the ones trolling you, supposedly?

You guys are funny in your defense of the "roster poison" charge. What weeks did you start him this year? I know, its terribly biased of me to ask you to answer this before he plays, and you only started him for his good weeks. Nobody started him in week 13, when he had 52 total yards. But you did start him in week 12, when he had 96 total yards and a touchdown! Nobody started him this week, right? 67 total yards, no td. Turd. Or for any of his games with 19, 69, 15 or 53 total yards and no td. But you might have started him for his games with 35 and a td, 39 and a td, and you certainly didn't miss 96 and a td, because you all started him despite it being week 2 and him only putting up 4 for 19 with no receiving the week before.

All i asked people to do was tell me which wweeks they started him. And instead of risking admitting that he was unstartable when gio plays, or that they started him on a bad week, I was told that the whole exercise is biased. Lol. You guys are nutty.

Truth be told, he was unstartable for all but three or four weeks this year - the three weeks gio was out and the week gio came back but we didn't know how much he'd play. Those weeks were awesome - 485 total yards and 3 tds in four weeks. But he has just 445 total yards and 3 tds in his other nine games combined. That's less than 50 yards and .33 tds/ week. And if you missed his 19 yards on week one, you probably missed his 96 and a td in week 2. That leaves seven games you ought have been tempted to start him, at 47 yards and .28 tds/week.

A lot of people in this thread - not you guys if course because you saw through the biased nature of asking you if you were staying him - admitted to starting him for those crap weeks. Some people caught those mediocre, 39 yards and a td type games, and of course all his owners loved him putting up big numbers when gio was hurt, but most people started him for some bad weeks and it hurt their teams.

The redraft owners hate him, but the dynasty owners pretend those weeks never happened because look at that ypc and oh man he's taking over and I got him so cheap and his value has gone way up. It's delusional thinking, and the fact you guys won't even participate by saying which weeks you start him, then accuse me of being biased here, is just silly at this point. Hes been a sucky fantasy player this year, except when gio was hurt. Maybe that will change, but it's not likely until 2017, if ever.

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

Click to expand...

Come on... At least try to not telegraph your posts as shtick.

Click to expand...

See what I mean? You honestly seem to believe that 8 rushes for 46 yards and 3 catches for 21 yards doesn't suck. It's like you live in a totally opposite universes where that doesn't suck because at least hos yards per carry were good.Try reading what I said again and just consider the possibility that this is just how things are. You know, like reality. Not like how you think reality ought to be despite all evidence so far to the contrary.

Click to expand...

In what universe is running for over 5 yds a pop sucking and how much DMT would one have to take to get there?

Click to expand...

My league voted on giving points for yards per carry instead of yards and touchdowns but it was voted down. How's it working in your league?

bostonfred said:

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

jurb26 said:

bostonfred said:

Ok, so what I'm seeing on the field is hill sucking in a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

Click to expand...

Come on... At least try to not telegraph your posts as shtick.

Click to expand...

See what I mean? You honestly seem to believe that 8 rushes for 46 yards and 3 catches for 21 yards doesn't suck. It's like you live in a totally opposite universes where that doesn't suck because at least hos yards per carry were good.Try reading what I said again and just consider the possibility that this is just how things are. You know, like reality. Not like how you think reality ought to be despite all evidence so far to the contrary.

Click to expand...

In what universe is running for over 5 yds a pop sucking and how much DMT would one have to take to get there?

Click to expand...

My league voted on giving points for yards per carry instead of yards and touchdowns but it was voted down. How's it working in your league?

Click to expand...

You can try to deflect the question all you want.