What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Jeremy Hill, RB (LVR) (1 Viewer)

bostonfred said:
Thanks for the post.

1) he wasn't rb3 out of the blue. He was rb3 when gio was hurt. That isn't variance, that's a specific known fact that influenced people's lineup decisions. There's a big difference. The regular variance in his play has averaged around 50 yards and .33 tds. Not so good.

1a) touche. Deep idp leagues are definitely an exception to the rule. 32 team league are too.

I should probably note those as an exception, especially if i'm charging for this content. But I'm not, and you seem quite capable of using your own powers of observation to figure that out. Instead of accusing me of not tailoring my content for your league, you could make posts of your own with your own experience. I'd listen.

2) touchdown dependent, low ceiling players are a lot different than the studs you named. You aren't taking lynch or Charles out of your lineup, and their high ceiling means you're likely to be rewarded for it at the end of the season.

Not so with hill. Most people (not counting 32 team idp dynasty leagues) didn't draft him to be a starter. And after his 19 yard week 1 dud, they probably didn't start him week 2. But after his 96 yards and a td week 2, they might have put him in their week three lineup for a crappy game. These guys tempt you to chase points, so a lot of people don't just get "variance", they make it worse by systemically missing his best weeks. And while it's possible to just bench him until or unless gio gets hurt, you had to spend enough to get him that you cost yourself some depth to support that choice.

3) i know in dynasty the cream rises to the top, but gio and hill ate both good players with different styles on a winning team that likes complementary backs. Anything can happen, but with gio in year two of a four year rookie contract, and hill in year one of a for year rookie contract, they're both very unlikely to go anywhere for a while.

It's interesting, though, that almost every hill owner has raised those point in an accusatory fashion like this, as though I didn't know this important dynasty truism. It's been incredibly consistent. I get the feeling you're used to defending your rankings or picks and that's your big trump card. And it's usually true. I'm just trying to have a deeper conversation about the dynasty format (not necessarily including 32 team and put idp leagues) and I think this is a rare case where situation does trump talent, and there's something you can do about it.
Click to expand...
32 team leagues is obviously an extreme example and my point is not to tailor the discussion to a 32 team league - which if you haven't played it is a wiiiiildly different experience. My point is that the value of Hill this season will vary greatly based on differences in format. 12 team versus 16 team. Standard versus PPR. Tiered PPR versus PPR. Position requirements. How many RBs you ideally want to start every week will depend greatly on format, and consequently the value of RBs and RB2s and RB3s will vary. With that in mind I find it a bit pointless when people have definitive statements that are very format specific.

Like you say; most people didn't draft Hill to be a starter. So in a dynasty format I would think that one would be very happy with what he has produced and what he has flashed of ability this year. If nothing else he can be flipped this offseason to a believer. As far as I understood this whole back and forth was sparked off with a discussion on whether or not Freeman or Hill had increased the most in value since the rookie drafts. Not determining whether or not Hill is a safe starting option so I'm not sure how we ended up discussing that.

You seem to peg me as a Jeremy Hill fanboy. I don't own him in any of my leagues and I invite you to read my posts in this thread over the last couple of weeks. I've primarily been coming to Gio's defense, not Hill's. But I found the stance that Freeman somehow had increased more in value than Hill this season to be such an interesting position that I had to dive in.

As for the Bengals'...depending on what happens over the last few games I'm not even sure Marvin Lewis will be there next season so I'll keep all options open when it comes to how Jeremy Hill might or might not be used next season.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
bostonfred said:
Alex, that's my answer to you. I'm not interested in continuing an argument here, but I'm happy to explain my viewpoint and answer questions if people ask and are interested in learning the way I see things. It seemed like that's what you were doing and appreciate that.

I don't think Bob or jurb or doc ock are really interested in that, but since doc ock was the one who said "let's agree to disagree" before quoting my post directly to you, I assume he was just trying to clarify a few things for himself. Always happy to help.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with everything that you have said and I was curious about that particular position that you were taking because I really don't think Cinncy has an abundance of weapons that other teams don't have.And sure, in an ideal world, I would love for my team to have the top players at every single position, but that's not really very realistic. In a league where I traded for Hill very early in the season, I have started him nearly every week (mostly because I had a ton of injuries at the RB position and it was my weakest position to start with). I finished 8-4 in that league, so I guess based on my particular experience I just don't see him as a useless asset. My top three players on that roster are Demaryius Thomas, Dez Bryant and Rob Gronkowski. I rotated Justin Forsett, Mark Ingram, and Hill at RB most weeks and got solid enough production based on the rest of my lineup.

I think the disconnect is that you seem to feel like every player on your roster must be some kind of super stud (or have that potential at least). Obviously that would be great, but in most leagues with good owners, that's pretty difficult to accomplish.

I think that having a guy like Hill that at the very least is nice depth to have on your bench for bye weeks and when inevitable injures hit your RB corp. is a pretty valuable asset and I think he has proven to have upside - I'm not really sure how that's debatable but will agree to disagree on that.
Click to expand...
The only way you end up with studs is to get players who might become studs. It's very difficult for me to see hill becoming a stud alongside gio. That's why I'd rather take a chance on a guy with immediate upside. If my pick busts, I churn quickly. I still see upside for Freeman but i no longer own him. It sounds like your gronk, demaryius. Dez, forsett, Ingram team was winning without hill for most of the season. I'm sure hill helped during that gio injury. I love having high upside backup rbs for just that purpose, but most of them are cheaper than hill.

Forsett was on dynasty waivers in most leagues. CJ Anderson was too. Rashad jennings got dropped in a lot of leagues last year before he went off. I've got a ton of running backs on my rosters in every league and even grabbed hill in a deep keeper - but only at a very cheap price. At a cheap enough price he's an ok dynasty stash, too - I just don't think his price was usually cheap enough.

 
Alex P Keaton said:
BF: you have always been one of my favorite posters, partly because you used to take complex topics and make them simple and easy to digest. For whatever reason, you are doing the exact opposite in this thread. And it is getting in the way of your desire to influence, inform, and educate,

Taking 5 paragraphs - or 500 words - to say what could have been said in 25 words is a very strange choice.

That said, I continue to find myself on your side of the debate 80% of the time in this thread. Thanks to you and Bob for a spirited discussion.
Click to expand...
I have bronchitis and a three year old. This is as good as me talk now good. Thanks for the kind words.
 
bostonfred said:
Alex P Keaton said:
BF: you have always been one of my favorite posters, partly because you used to take complex topics and make them simple and easy to digest. For whatever reason, you are doing the exact opposite in this thread. And it is getting in the way of your desire to influence, inform, and educate,

Taking 5 paragraphs - or 500 words - to say what could have been said in 25 words is a very strange choice.

That said, I continue to find myself on your side of the debate 80% of the time in this thread. Thanks to you and Bob for a spirited discussion.
Click to expand...
I have bronchitis and a three year old. This is as good as me talk now good. Thanks for the kind words.
Click to expand...
Good luck man. I have two 6 year olds. Understood.
 
Aah, if you tend to play with smaller rosters I can see why you would prefer to try and hit big quickly through situation instead of waiting for talent to develop.

With larger rosters and deeper leagues there will be very little to find on waivers so it becomes more important to increase the overall value of your roster and avoid misses, rather than try to hit on fliers. If you miss on a player in shallow leagues you can just sub him for another lottery ticket off waivers, but in deeper leagues that's a sunk value that you're not getting back.

 
I've played in a lot of formats but 14 team, 24 in season/30 offseason, no idp is my only true dynasty league right now. That's not especially shallow I wouldn't think although I'm sure there are are deeper leagues. The reason I want fast churn with my draft picks is that I want to trade them if I miss. I don't think that's a format specific thing but maybe.

 
bostonfred said:
jurb26 said:
You're right BF, I misread that some... My apologies.

None the less, the statement still doesn't make sense. Even if every team has a RB better than Hill, or any other RB2, that doesn't make a RB2 less valuable. By definition there are only enough RB1s to go around for the exact number of teams in the league. That is the definition of a RB1. Some owners will get fortunate enough to land more than 1. This may decrease your advantage vs that singular owner, but it by definition increases the value of the RB2s vs anyone else. Unless you are playing in leagues where only 1 RB can possibly be started, RB2s are a valuable and essential portion to any team.
Click to expand...
You're getting closer but still not understanding the important part.I don't want to win games. I want trophies. Having an advantage against the last place team is great, but being at a disadvantage against the first place task isnt.

I want my team to be the stacked team. It seems like you do, too. That's why you're attracted to hills talent. We both want the same thing, but I don't like the approach of drafting hill and getting three years of mediocrity before I find out if they're going to resign gio.

I want to buy lottery tickets, flip them before they lose all value, and then scoop up hill right around the time his owner is sick of having a time share running back. Drafting him and holding him that whole time makes no sense to me because fundamentally you should *never* want to have to start a guy you *project* as rb15, and if you don't want to start him, you should be looking for ways to get him as late as possible.

I suppose its less bad in a total rebuild, or if your league has very deep starting lineups. He's much more valuable in a 32 team league than 14 or even 16. But even then you aren't happy to start him unless your strong at other positions.
Click to expand...
[SIZE=10.5pt]Hill gave his owners a big advantage for 2 out of the 3 weeks where he was an auto-start. In all of the other weeks, his "startability" came down to team and league specifics. You keep touting your poll of a couple of owners like it's evidence of anything, but it isn't. The actual percentage of owners who started him those weeks is much lower than you are leading on.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I know you think you can predict the future, but we have no idea if we're going to get 3 years of mediocrity out of Hill. Any number of things could happen to change the "situation", such as Gio could get hit by a bus tomorrow and all of the sudden Hill becomes a top 10 dynasty RB easily. Freeman would need at least 2 guys to get hit by a bus, then have the next 2 guys they bring in get hit by a bus as well, then [/SIZE]maybe he could put up numbers that you say you'd never want to start anyway.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Using your lottery ticket analogy, Hill's value increased from his draft position, so the smart thing to do for those with a crystal ball like yourself would have been to select him with the early 2nd round pick and then flip him for more later. Instead, you selected Freeman and watched his value plummet. On what planet is that the better move? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Fundamentally, in most leagues every owner should want to have the RB 15 on his roster, especially when he only cost RB 40 prices to acquire. RB 15, even if it comes with variance (as almost every single RB does), is valuable in the vast majority of fantasy football leagues, even if it's only as insurance. It's completely bizarre to think otherwise.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Obviously everyone would like super studs at every position, but that isn't reality, particularly when you consider his draft slot. Again, we are talking about the ~40 RB selected in re-drafts, or an early 2nd round rookie pick in dynasty leagues. Despite your stubborn insistence that he cost his owners an arm and a leg to acquire, your expectations for players selected where he was is entirely out of whack. The vast majority of these guys, like Freeman, become wasted picks. If he doesn't have two games in his entire career like Hill had this year no one would be surprised. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This season can't reasonably be construed as anything but a positive, yet here you are, still saying "I told you so, he's poison". SMH.[/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
humpback said:
bostonfred said:
jurb26 said:
You're right BF, I misread that some... My apologies.

None the less, the statement still doesn't make sense. Even if every team has a RB better than Hill, or any other RB2, that doesn't make a RB2 less valuable. By definition there are only enough RB1s to go around for the exact number of teams in the league. That is the definition of a RB1. Some owners will get fortunate enough to land more than 1. This may decrease your advantage vs that singular owner, but it by definition increases the value of the RB2s vs anyone else. Unless you are playing in leagues where only 1 RB can possibly be started, RB2s are a valuable and essential portion to any team.
Click to expand...
You're getting closer but still not understanding the important part.I don't want to win games. I want trophies. Having an advantage against the last place team is great, but being at a disadvantage against the first place task isnt.

I want my team to be the stacked team. It seems like you do, too. That's why you're attracted to hills talent. We both want the same thing, but I don't like the approach of drafting hill and getting three years of mediocrity before I find out if they're going to resign gio.

I want to buy lottery tickets, flip them before they lose all value, and then scoop up hill right around the time his owner is sick of having a time share running back. Drafting him and holding him that whole time makes no sense to me because fundamentally you should *never* want to have to start a guy you *project* as rb15, and if you don't want to start him, you should be looking for ways to get him as late as possible.

I suppose its less bad in a total rebuild, or if your league has very deep starting lineups. He's much more valuable in a 32 team league than 14 or even 16. But even then you aren't happy to start him unless your strong at other positions.
Click to expand...
[SIZE=10.5pt]Hill gave his owners a big advantage for 2 out of the 3 weeks where he was an auto-start. In all of the other weeks, his "startability" came down to team and league specifics. You keep touting your poll of a couple of owners like it's evidence of anything, but it isn't. The actual percentage of owners who started him those weeks is much lower than you are leading on.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I know you think you can predict the future, but we have no idea if we're going to get 3 years of mediocrity out of Hill. Any number of things could happen to change the "situation", such as Gio could get hit by a bus tomorrow and all of the sudden Hill becomes a top 10 dynasty RB easily. Freeman would need at least 2 guys to get hit by a bus, then have the next 2 guys they bring in get hit by a bus as well, then maybe he could put up numbers that you say you'd never want to start anyway.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Using your lottery ticket analogy, Hill's value increased from his draft position, so the smart thing to do for those with a crystal ball like yourself would have been to select him with the early 2nd round pick and then flip him for more later. Instead, you selected Freeman and watched his value plummet. On what planet is that the better move? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Fundamentally, in most leagues every owner should want to have the RB 15 on his roster, especially when he only cost RB 40 prices to acquire. RB 15, even if it comes with variance (as almost every single RB does), is valuable in the vast majority of fantasy football leagues, even if it's only as insurance. It's completely bizarre to think otherwise.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Obviously everyone would like super studs at every position, but that isn't reality, particularly when you consider his draft slot. Again, we are talking about the ~40 RB selected in re-drafts, or an early 2nd round rookie pick in dynasty leagues. Despite your stubborn insistence that he cost his owners an arm and a leg to acquire, your expectations for players selected where he was is entirely out of whack. The vast majority of these guys, like Freeman, become wasted picks. If he doesn't have two games in his entire career like Hill had this year no one would be surprised. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This season can't reasonably be construed as anything but a positive, yet here you are, still saying "I told you so, he's poison". SMH.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

I got him at 11.11 in a 12-team PPR redraft.

I've started him about 5 times. Happy with that value.

 
In non ppr

His 4 startable games (gio's injury and first game back): 18.8 ppg

His other 9 games: 7ppg (rb41 in ppg, right next to trent Richardson)

if you count gio's first game back, then in 10 games he had 8.8ppg - rb28, just below Steven Jackson.

He's useful as a backup running back to gio, which is how redraft owners used him. He is worthless in a time share. But a lot of people in this thread don't seem to see that, and some have started him all season and think they got "rb15" value from him.

I absolutely see the talent. I love him as a "backup rb", but I wouldn't start him when gio is on the field. He was an expensive dynasty pickup for a guy you can't play unless gio gets injured. And the more games they play together, the further his value will drop, so you can still get him later. In the meantime, instead if tying up roster spots for three years waiting to find out if gio re signs, you can use that roster spot and draft pick to more value.

 
bostonfred said:
In non ppr

His 4 startable games (gio's injury and first game back): 18.8 ppg

His other 9 games: 7ppg (rb41 in ppg, right next to trent Richardson)

if you count gio's first game back, then in 10 games he had 8.8ppg - rb28, just below Steven Jackson.

He's useful as a backup running back to gio, which is how redraft owners used him. He is worthless in a time share. But a lot of people in this thread don't seem to see that, and some have started him all season and think they got "rb15" value from him.

I absolutely see the talent. I love him as a "backup rb", but I wouldn't start him when gio is on the field. He was an expensive dynasty pickup for a guy you can't play unless gio gets injured. And the more games they play together, the further his value will drop, so you can still get him later. In the meantime, instead if tying up roster spots for three years waiting to find out if gio re signs, you can use that roster spot and draft pick to more value.
Click to expand...
Gio contract status - 5/23/2013: Signed a four-year, $5.253 million contract. The deal included a $2.2 million signing bonus. 2014: $643,788, 2015: $832,576, 2016: $1,071,364, 2017: Free Agent

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup, there are three key events for hill's dynasty status.

1) If he takes on a much bigger role over the next two years, either through injury or superior play. So far, injury seems like the far easier path.

2) if gio leaves in free agency (or isn't re signed) in 2017, and they don't replace him with a new RBBC mate.

3) if hill leaves as a 2018 free agent at age 25.

 
bostonfred said:
He is worthless in a time share. But a lot of people in this thread don't seem to see that,
Click to expand...
Maybe if you repeated it 100 more times people would start to see it. :shrug:

"Worthless" is a pretty relative term and I think people are probably not seeing it because...well...he's not worthless. I'm sure you believe that he is, which is great.

Three serious questions:

1) Is this a giant fishing trip, because if not, at this point who are you trying to convince? I know that may seem to not be serious, but I'm curious about that.

2) Even if you converted someone to your view that he is "worthless" and "roster poison" are you suggesting that they should just drop him, because this "expensive" price that those that own him had to pay to acquire him, wouldn't that already be a sunken cost?

3) If we cut him, who do you suggest we pick up now on waiver so as to not waste the roster spot on this "worthless" player?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred said:
In non ppr

His 4 startable games (gio's injury and first game back): 18.8 ppg

His other 9 games: 7ppg (rb41 in ppg, right next to trent Richardson)

if you count gio's first game back, then in 10 games he had 8.8ppg - rb28, just below Steven Jackson.

He's useful as a backup running back to gio, which is how redraft owners used him. He is worthless in a time share. But a lot of people in this thread don't seem to see that, and some have started him all season and think they got "rb15" value from him.

I absolutely see the talent. I love him as a "backup rb", but I wouldn't start him when gio is on the field. He was an expensive dynasty pickup for a guy you can't play unless gio gets injured. And the more games they play together, the further his value will drop, so you can still get him later. In the meantime, instead if tying up roster spots for three years waiting to find out if gio re signs, you can use that roster spot and draft pick to more value.
Click to expand...
Let's ignore that the vast majority would disagree that he was an expensive dynasty pickup. Let's also ignore that he is far from worthless in a time share. You continue to try and make the case that you are better off having your 2nd round pick be an abject failure so you can drop him and not use a roster space. Somehow, in your mind, you are better off drafting Freeman than the far more valuable Hill with the same pick. It's irrational.

 
bostonfred said:
Bob Magaw said:
What other rookie RB in that neighborhood is likely to provide that kind of value. What WR drafted in that region is likely to provide the value of a top 5-10 RB (the advice to take a WR is a bit vague and abstract without citing specific examples of who you have in mind as being a better use of the pick)?
Click to expand...
There's a long list of receivers who are virtually interchangeable in rookie drafts. After Watkins and Evans, there seems to be some consensus on Matthews, Cooks and Beckham, as well as Adams, Benjamin, Lattimer, Lee, Robinson, and Moncrief. All of those guys have WR1 or WR2 potential. You can make a case for some and against others. I don't care which ones you like or don't, and my specific list isn't the point here.Some or all of the rookie QBs and at least Ebron, if not ASJ and Amaro, have stud potential. In most leagues I'd consider some or all of them ahead of Hill.

At running back, Sankey, Hyde, and now a growing consensus on Freeman that didn't exist when I was first posting in this thread are all better bets because all three of them have an opportunity to be the dominant back on their team.

But Mason, West and even Andre Williams, who I don't personally like, all have a legitimate path to stardom as well. It's up to the reader to decide how much risk they're willing to take for the chance at a stud vs. the security of a seemingly talented but equally unproven committee back who has a good chance to get 30-55% of the carries for his team.

And even guys like Ka'Deem Carey, Jerrick McKinnon, James White, Storm Johnson and Charles Sims have a path to their starting jobs. In Carey, Sims and McKinnon's cases, they'd need to beat out a good, established veteran. White and Johnson don't have that established player in front of them, but they're still going to have to fight for a chance at their jobs. Out of that group, for my money, I take Carey and Sims, because I think their skill set matches what their coaches are looking for in a starter. Would I take them ahead of Hill? Depends on my team structure. Again, it's up to the reader to decide what's appropriate for their league.
Click to expand...
I liked a lot more guys than just freeman ahead of hill. Freeman was just an example that you guys all piled on. I advocated taking high upside players and acknowledged the risk. I put my money where my mouth is, and I've since traded freeman away. I named 24 guys I'd take ahead of hill - 4 qbs, 3 tes, 11 receivers, plus sankey, Hyde, freeman, mason, west, and possibly Carey and sims. If you want to pick at me for liking freeman, be my guest, but my point about hill and guys in this kind of situation doesn't change. I would definitely still take all if those receivers ahead of hill. All the quarterbacks, too. And all of the tight ends. I'd still take sankey, Hyde, mason, west and sims ahead of him, too. I'd personally still take freeman too, although youre right that hill has more trade value right now, so if i could trade him away. I'd take hill.

You and bob act like freeman was the only guy i ever liked in this class, but it's not true.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
bostonfred said:
He is worthless in a time share. But a lot of people in this thread don't seem to see that,
Click to expand...
Maybe if you repeated it 100 more times people would start to see it. :shrug:

"Worthless" is a pretty relative term and I think people are probably not seeing it because...well...he's not worthless. I'm sure you believe that he is, which is great.

Three serious questions:

1) Is this a giant fishing trip, because if not, at this point who are you trying to convince? I know that may seem to not be serious, but I'm curious about that.

2) Even if you converted someone to your view that he is "worthless" and "roster poison" are you suggesting that they should just drop him, because this "expensive" price that those that own him had to pay to acquire him, wouldn't that already be a sunken cost?

3) If we cut him, who do you suggest we pick up now on waiver so as to not waste the roster spot on this "worthless" player?
Click to expand...
drop him? That's the only alternative? Tell me how I'm the one fishing again?And yes, worthless in a time share. Very valuable when gio is hurt. Kind of like knile Davis or Matt asiata. A backup rb who gets more various than most back up rbs.

(For clarification, gio has been acting like a backup rb as well - I'm not implying that gio is the starter and hill is not, but that hill only has fantasy appeal if gio gets hurt, and now it appears the opposite may be true as well)

 
bostonfred said:
Dr. Octopus said:
bostonfred said:
He is worthless in a time share. But a lot of people in this thread don't seem to see that,
Click to expand...
Maybe if you repeated it 100 more times people would start to see it. :shrug:

"Worthless" is a pretty relative term and I think people are probably not seeing it because...well...he's not worthless. I'm sure you believe that he is, which is great.

Three serious questions:

1) Is this a giant fishing trip, because if not, at this point who are you trying to convince? I know that may seem to not be serious, but I'm curious about that.

2) Even if you converted someone to your view that he is "worthless" and "roster poison" are you suggesting that they should just drop him, because this "expensive" price that those that own him had to pay to acquire him, wouldn't that already be a sunken cost?

3) If we cut him, who do you suggest we pick up now on waiver so as to not waste the roster spot on this "worthless" player?
Click to expand...
drop him? That's the only alternative? Tell me how I'm the one fishing again?And yes, worthless in a time share. Very valuable when gio is hurt. Kind of like knile Davis or Matt asiata. A backup rb who gets more various than most back up rbs.

(For clarification, gio has been acting like a backup rb as well - I'm not implying that gio is the starter and hill is not, but that hill only has fantasy appeal if gio gets hurt, and now it appears the opposite may be true as well)
Click to expand...
Well if one could get value for him in a trade would that still make him worthless?

 
Word is from beat writers is that Hue is planning to give the bulk of the work this week to one back and that back is going to be Hill

-QG

 
Bengals OC Hue Jackson said he'd like to lean more on one running back.
Ever since Giovani Bernard returned from his hip injury, he's been getting the starts, and he and Jeremy Hill have been splitting the workload. It's not working, and we believe Jackson wants to go back to the power running game with Hill. Bernard is averaging a mere 3.18 YPC since returning, while Hill is churning out yards, but still needs more touches. Hill remains an RB2 with upside for Week 15 against the Browns. Bernard is barely in the FLEX conversation
 
I could see Gio in on passing and 3 down situations. Don't think he's not involved at all. Sounds like they are moving away from giving each RB their own series. Probably ends up being more of a situational split, which gives Hill a chance to take more carries if he's effective.

 
hotlanta said:
Ketamine Dreams said:
Would love this to be true and be able to believe it.
Click to expand...
Me too. Although I have a hard time seeing Bernard not being involved in some sort of split.
Click to expand...
I think that the split Bernard will be involved in is being the split receiver on some plays. I bet it goes like 3 to 1 for Hill in terms of carries this week.

I'm still bummed about the way they abandoned the run way too quickly last time against Cleveland :(

-QG

 
Squintz82 said:
I could see Gio in on passing and 3 down situations. Don't think he's not involved at all. Sounds like they are moving away from giving each RB their own series. Probably ends up being more of a situational split, which gives Hill a chance to take more carries if he's effective.
Click to expand...
This would make much more sense than rotating series. They can both catch and run so it's not like they'd be telegraphing the play when Hill is in or Gio is in like New Orleans kind of does. Let Hill be the power runner with Gio coming in as cop.

 
:sigh: I hate coaches sometimes. I'm gonna roll the dice on Hill (also own Gio), but if Gio goes off/gets anything more than 1/3 touches, I'll be breaking things on Sunday.

 
As a Hill owner, I'd like to believe this. But WHY would any coach truly disclose his strategy BEFORE the game??? Im not buying it...

 
raydc said:
As a Hill owner, I'd like to believe this. But WHY would any coach truly disclose his strategy BEFORE the game??? Im not buying it...
Click to expand...
I don't see the element of surprise being an important part of the decision-making process here. I think the other team will figure out what's going on by who is in the game more during the first few series. In addition, as Bernard has been the starter since returning from his injuries, the Browns would get a pretty good indication on the Bengals very first snap.

I'm not sure what advantage the Bengals lose by signaling Hill may be getting 2/3 of the touches. It's not like the Browns have something exotic to prepare for like a wildcat formation or whatever.

Having said all that, I'll believe it when I see it, and unfortunately, as an owner of both, I've got to finalize my lineup before I see it.

 
I've been following the "who is the starter" issue in the Crowell thread, but does anyone provide pre-game tweets about who is starting for the Bengals?

I know how this will work: whichever of Gio/Hill that I start, I'll be wrong. There's smoke leading me to believe it's Hill, but I'm wondering if I should go contrarian here. :shrug:

 
Faust said:
Is Jeremy Hill about to be Bengals' primary RB?
Click to expand...
Thank for the link, Faust.

CINCINNATI -- Could Giovani Bernard's days as the Cincinnati Bengals' primary running back be numbered?

It's possible.

Angered with the way his backfield rotation has gone this season, offensive coordinator Hue Jackson hinted Wednesday at a possible shakeup coming to the group that might include going away from the two-back system he and others have lauded since the offseason.

Instead, he appears to favor implementing a one-back scheme.

"That's what I'm kind of used to," Jackson said. "I'm used to having one guy kind of dominate some carries because, in order for backs to be really good, they've got to get lathered up to play. You've got to get a feel for the game.

"We have two capable guys and they're different guys and we'll let it play itself out, but we have a pretty good idea which way we're headed."

Asked if that meant he was leaning toward having one premier back, Jackson said, "We'll see."

Logic stands to reason that if the Bengals start going in the direction of a one-back system, rookie Jeremy Hill would be the back they turn to.

Of the Bengals' two starting ball carriers, Hill has the most yards and a higher rushing average. In the three games in which he was the feature back while Bernard rested from a series of injuries, Hill stole the show. Twice in that three-week stretch he topped the 150-yard mark.

Since Bernard's return to the rotation three games ago, the pair has mostly split duties, although Hill has slightly more touches. He also has rushed for 62 yards more than Bernard on six more carries and gained on average a full yard more than Bernard, notching 4.4 yards per carry compared to his colleague's 3.4.

With the end of the season looming, the Bengals are hoping to stave off desperate charges by the other teams in the AFC North, including Sunday's opponent, Cleveland. They also are looking for any offensive boost that they can take. Cincinnati currently ranks 10th in rushing offense.

"It's not giving me the results I want," Jackson said. "At the end of the day, it's all about results."

So does that mean Hill will soon assume the role of the Bengals' primary running back? We'll just have to see how the snaps and touches break down this weekend.

 
Rotoworld:

Jeremy Hill - RB - Bengals

According to Bengals.com, the "conventional wisdom" is Jeremy Hill will handle the "bulk of the carries" in Cincinnati's backfield the rest of the way.

The Bengals have tried using Hill and Gio Bernard in an even RBBC the past three weeks, but OC Hue Jackson hasn't been pleased with the results. "I'm used to having one guy kind of dominate some carries because in order for backs to be really good, they've got to get lathered up to play," Jackson said after Wednesday’s practice. "You've got to get a feel for the game. ... We'll let it play itself out, but I think we have a pretty good idea which way we're headed." Hill appears set up for 20 touches in a favorable Week 15 matchup with a leaky Browns run defense. He'll be an RB2 play with upside for more.

Source: bengals.com

Dec 10 - 8:35 PM
Click to expand...
 
The Jerk said:
raydc said:
As a Hill owner, I'd like to believe this. But WHY would any coach truly disclose his strategy BEFORE the game??? Im not buying it...
Click to expand...
I don't see the element of surprise being an important part of the decision-making process here. I think the other team will figure out what's going on by who is in the game more during the first few series. In addition, as Bernard has been the starter since returning from his injuries, the Browns would get a pretty good indication on the Bengals very first snap.

I'm not sure what advantage the Bengals lose by signaling Hill may be getting 2/3 of the touches. It's not like the Browns have something exotic to prepare for like a wildcat formation or whatever.

Having said all that, I'll believe it when I see it, and unfortunately, as an owner of both, I've got to finalize my lineup before I see it.
Click to expand...
If you were going to start one of the two, wouldn't it be Hill anyway?

 
Bob Magaw said:
Faust said:
Is Jeremy Hill about to be Bengals' primary RB?
Click to expand...
Thank for the link, Faust.

CINCINNATI -- Could Giovani Bernard's days as the Cincinnati Bengals' primary running back be numbered?

It's possible.

Angered with the way his backfield rotation has gone this season, offensive coordinator Hue Jackson hinted Wednesday at a possible shakeup coming to the group that might include going away from the two-back system he and others have lauded since the offseason.

Instead, he appears to favor implementing a one-back scheme.

"That's what I'm kind of used to," Jackson said. "I'm used to having one guy kind of dominate some carries because, in order for backs to be really good, they've got to get lathered up to play. You've got to get a feel for the game.

"We have two capable guys and they're different guys and we'll let it play itself out, but we have a pretty good idea which way we're headed."

Asked if that meant he was leaning toward having one premier back, Jackson said, "We'll see."

Logic stands to reason that if the Bengals start going in the direction of a one-back system, rookie Jeremy Hill would be the back they turn to.

Of the Bengals' two starting ball carriers, Hill has the most yards and a higher rushing average. In the three games in which he was the feature back while Bernard rested from a series of injuries, Hill stole the show. Twice in that three-week stretch he topped the 150-yard mark.

Since Bernard's return to the rotation three games ago, the pair has mostly split duties, although Hill has slightly more touches. He also has rushed for 62 yards more than Bernard on six more carries and gained on average a full yard more than Bernard, notching 4.4 yards per carry compared to his colleague's 3.4.

With the end of the season looming, the Bengals are hoping to stave off desperate charges by the other teams in the AFC North, including Sunday's opponent, Cleveland. They also are looking for any offensive boost that they can take. Cincinnati currently ranks 10th in rushing offense.

"It's not giving me the results I want," Jackson said. "At the end of the day, it's all about results."

So does that mean Hill will soon assume the role of the Bengals' primary running back? We'll just have to see how the snaps and touches break down this weekend.
Click to expand...
Seems like a bunch of speculation and wishful thinking based on stats. Would like to hear some something more substantial before I change my mind about this mess of a backfield.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Goodberry pointed out yesterday that Hill averages 3.9 yards per carry on his first 10 carries of a game, and 6.7 yards per carry after 10 carries. Gio averages 4.5 yards per carry on his first 10 carries of a game, and 2.8 yards per carry after 10. My hope would be that they make Hill the workhorse and give him all the BJGE carries, and that they start using Gio in a more sensible way where he can be effective. Gio should ideally be used in the passing game and finding ways to get him in space, not as a battering ram against loaded boxes. Their use of Gio has been borderline negligent, and I don't mean that as a knock on Gio. He can be a fantastic asset but they have to put him in situations where he excels.

A note for this week's matchup; Haden typically has AJ Green's number so CIN might have to find other ways to move the chains. In the last three games versus CLE AJ Green has had 12 catches on 30 targets for an average of 27 yards and 0 TDs per game with 2 INTs for Haden. Given Sanu's drop rate, Gresham's brainfart rate, and going up against a bad run defense one would think that they put a lot of work on their RBs, but the question is if you can trust them to do the sensible thing.

 
I still think grinding out a low scoring game is a mistake and we better be ready to throw ourselves into a lead. With that said, I trust Hue and Hobson a lot when they speak so I would be wary of Gio for sure.

 
At this point of the season the Bengals defense has given up the second most offensive plays at 907. 385 of those have been rushing attempts and they are giving up 4.4 ypc

This philosophy of ball control really only works when the team has a good enough defense to keep a significant lead. I don't think the Bengals defense is performing well enough to support this philosophy, but that does seem to be the plan going into this weeks game with the Browns (and most of the season

The Browns defense is very similar, having allowed 905 offensive plays and 382 rushing attempts at 4.4 ypc

So this is a favorable match up for both teams to run the ball. The team that does a better job of that could cause the other team to abandon the run however.

In the last match up with the Browns on Nov 6 the Browns ran the ball 52 times and held a lead for most of the game. Andy Dalton threw 3 interceptions and was not effective. None of their receivers had more than 3 receptions in the game and Hill had 12 carries, Bernard did not play in the game.

Currently Bernard has 43 targets compared to Hills 28 targets. That is 60.5% of the RB targets. Cedrick Peerman had 5 targets when Bernard was out with injury. So if the Bengals are behind in the score it seems more likely Bernard gets targets in the passing game over Hill.

After 13 games the Bengals have 815 offensive plays (62.7plays/game) which paces to 1003 total plays with 3 games left to go. The Bengals have run the ball on 46.8% of their total plays so far this season. Which is pretty close to the 47% run/pass ratio with Hue Jackson previously as the OC/HC with the Raiders. Injuries at WR and TE certainly have contributed to this change as well, but the coaches philosophy is at work here.

If you think the Bengals defense will be able to slow down the Browns running game and keep the score from getting out of hand then Hill or Bernard could be good plays. However if the Bengals get behind I think Bernard is more likely to see targets in the passing game than Hill is.

2014 281 points 21.6pts/gm (18th) 4531 yards 348.5yds/gm (17th) 815 total plays 62.7plays/game

2013 430 points 26.9pts/gm (6th) 5891 yards 368yds/gm (10th) 1097 total plays 68.6plays/game

2012 391 points 24.4pts/gm (12th) 5323 yards 332.6yds/gm (22nd) 1016 total plays 63.5 plays/game

Overall I wonder if there will be changes with the Bengals coaching staff after this season (as I did after hearing quite a bit about what Jacksons plans were for the offense during the offseason). The offense has regressed significantly from how well they have been performing the previous two seasons.

 
Biabreakable said:
Overall I wonder if there will be changes with the Bengals coaching staff after this season (as I did after hearing quite a bit about what Jacksons plans were for the offense during the offseason). The offense has regressed significantly from how well they have been performing the previous two seasons.
Click to expand...
They have to be asking themselves if Marvin Lewis is the right HC to take the team forward. He's done fantastic in building a deep and strong roster but this is his 12th season and he has still to win a playoff game. The offense has regressed this year but more than anything it is the defense. The run game has been terrible and the pass rush has disappeared. Lewis and Zimmer both got credit for the strong defense of the past few years, but these are the defensive rankings pre-Zimmer, Zimmer and post-Zimmer:

Pre-Zimmer: 28, 19, 28, 30, 27.

Under Zimmer: 12, 4, 15, 7, 6, 3.

Post-Zimmer: 28.

The Burfict injury has been very damaging obviously but apart from that there hasn't really been many injuries on defense this season. Maualuga was down for a few games, there's been some minor stuff at CB. But it's not like there weren't any injuries under Zimmer. Last year he lost Geno, Leon Hall and Lamur plus plenty of weekly shuffling at CB.

If they miss the playoffs we very well might see a totally different offensive gameplan for Hill next season...

 
Zimmer has made a significant improvement to the Vikings defense which was last in the league in many categories in 2013. With a lot of the same personnel.

Offensive snaps over the last 3 weeks when Bernard returned from injury.

Bernard

WK 14 34os 56%
Wk 13 30os 49%
WK 12 49os 60%

Hill

WK 14 30os 49%
WK 13 31os 51%
WK 12 32os 40%
WK 11 49os 80%

Peerman

Wk 11 6os 10%

Burkhead

Wk 11 6os 10%

So it is possible that Jackson wants to return to giving either Hill or Bernard 80% of the snaps like they did in week 11

If the Bengals do run the ball 47% of the time for their average of 63 plays/game that would be 29.6 rushing attempts. 80% of that would be 23.7 ruhsing attempts for the lead RB

In the 2 games where Hill had over 20 carries they were against Jacksonville and the Saints. The Bengals were able to get ahead in the score in both of these games. The Saints are even worse than the Bengals or Browns against the run giving up 4.8 ypc to teams so far this season. The Jaguars are slightly better but with a struggling offense.

Hill did have a good game against the Texans the first week after Bernard came back and the Texans are a above average run defense this season. Perhaps this is what Hue hopes to get back to?

Manziel adds another element for the zone read option that the Bengals didn't face last time they played the Browns. I don't really see the Bengals being able to stop the run well enough to expect a favorable game script for the Bengals RB unless the Browns turn the ball over early.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
RB Jaleel McLaughlin, DEN
3 4 5
Replies
216
Views
13K
Stoneworker
S
Ministry of Pain
Exploit/Avoid Week 3
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
Hartliner
2023 RB Lotto Ticket Rankings
6 7 8
Replies
354
Views
20K
packer_junkie
packer_junkie

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top