I looked back to 2006, I could go further but it's time consuming and I think there is enough info, to see how many times RBs from the same team scored in the top 30 RBs for a given season (Standard scoring). Here are the results and hopefully I didn't miss any.
2013
Det Bush/Bell
Buf Jackson/Spiller
Arz Ellington/Mendy
NE Blount/Ridely
2012
Det Leshoure/Bell
2011
HOU Foster/Tate
SD Mathews/Tolbert
NO Sproles/Thomas
NYG Bradshaw/Jacobs
Car Stewart/Williams
2010
KC Charles/Thomas
Oak McFadden/Bush
NYG Bradshaw/Jacobs
NYJ Tomlinson/Woodhead
2009
Bal Rice/McGahee
Car Williams/Stewart
NYG Bradshaw/Jacobs
2008
Car Williams/Stewart
Tenn Johnson/White
NYG Jacobs/Ward
NE Faulk/Morris
2007
Minn Peterson/Taylor
Jack MJD/Taylor
Car Foster/Williams
2006
Jack MJD/Taylor
NO McAllister/Bush
NE Dillon/Maroney
Dal Barber/Jones
Thanks for pulling this together. I don't know if top 30 is the right cutoff, because i am not hoping for top 30 upside with an early dynasty rookie pick, but it gives us a good starting point. I think you may be missing mathews/woodhead from this past season, but the list looks good.
Of the guys above, how many were top 10 seasons? Top 5? I think mjd makes the cut, chris johnsons 2k season, adrian peterson and maybe ray rice. I don't think any of these situations had two top ten guys on the same team/same season. For the most part it looks like either a starter who got hurt and their backup played well, or a goal line back who got enough carries and tds to be a borderline starter. There were a couple cases where the number two guy was borderline startable without being the td guy - julius jones, chester taylor, kevin faulk and maroney - but again, they weren't really guys you were excited to play each week.
Also looking at that list, there arent a lot of repeat offenders. So like I've been saying, you might see a perfect storm one year where both backs have good seasons together, but they're not true stud seasons, and it doesn't seem to happen again the following year.
so again, why would you want to spend an early dynasty pick on a guy with little to no chance of putting up an elite season? There's only so much to go around.
Why assume people spent an early pick on him. It happened in one draft you mentioned, and others have brought it up, but you have locked in on that valuation more than anybody, by far. In four of the five leagues I've drafted in, he went in the second three times and third once.
You have said elsewhere he is worth no more than a late second (I suppose YMCV depending on if it is a 12-14-16 team league). Why not focus on that (what you said, and not what other people said), and see if that valuation makes sense. We discussed Freeman (and I'll return to it), but he usually isn't an option and already off the board where Hill would be an option. Why does he have to be top 5, or even top 10, to justify a pick somewhere before the "late second"? 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)? Trading the pick is an option for some, but not all leagues are that active, and why make the assumption that you will receive fair value for that pick? What if a team is stacked at WR, starters and depth, but doesn't have much starting RB talent, or they are old, or in danger of being replaced imminently, is it always better to take the speculative WR, irregardless of individual roster compositions, such that we can give blanket advice that is good in all cases?
The best and most productive RBBC for last year was probably Bush and Bell. Bell was anywhere from a low RB1 to high RB2, depending on size of league. As you have pointed out, we haven't seen a lot of instances where the RB with a less prominent role in the RBBC repeated that, so you thought based on that past track record, Hill would be lucky to do it once and than it might not be repeated again.
There can be different reasons that one or both members of a RBBC haven't repeated historically.
A) lack of talent, B) age, C) injury, D) draft, E) free agency, F) trade, G) coaching change, to name a few (if any ONE of these things happened to ONE of the RBBC members, so with so many variables that could potentially blow up their consistency historical record, it makes makes it mathematically more likely to be the usual state of affairs - but that isn't necessarily an indictment on an unusual state of affairs). Also, in how many instances was the team... H) as committed to the run as Jackson says he will be, and I) the ostensible RB1 is an undersized back with outstanding hands that can receive touches like a WR, and the projected RB2 (RB1A?) is 235 lbs., built to handle a greater percentage of carries if needed and has a chance at 8-10+ rushing TDs, due to that size differential).
In how many RECENT instances were one or both members of a RBBC impacted by one or several of the above conditions, and how might CIN be different... A) second rounders and arguably the top RBs in their respective class (we probably aren't worried about lack of talent), B) a second year and rookie RB (not worried about either getting old any time soon), C) regarding injury, I'm not predicting either will get hurt (but it is worth pointing out if Bernard is injured, that doesn't hurt Hill), D) back to back second round picks the team probably won't be looking to replace any time soon, E) free agency (if Bernard and Hill excel in their respective roles, no need to anticipate their bringing in a free agency RB as an upgrade, and neither can leave in free agency for years), F) trade (see last point), G) coaching change (Hue Jackson could do bad and get fired, but ATL could have the same thing happen, and a hypothetical new OC might prefer big RBs; Jackson could also do good and get another HC opportunity, but if a Bernard/Hill RBBC succeeds, Marvin Lewis and the new OC may not look to change that formula).
If this is a rare and exceptional case, it might be a misplaced concern to think that because other RBBCs without as great a confluence of positive factors haven't done it, Bernard and Hill aren't likely to succeed for more than one year, either.
Again, why do Bernard and Hill both have to be top 10 RBs every year to justify a higher than late second pick for Hill. Most teams don't have two of Jamaal Charles, LeSean McCoy and Adrian Peterson as their starting RBs. Most teams, on average, will have one top 12-14-16 RB (not all teams win with two great RBs, some strategies emphasize having top WRs or TEs, for example). If Hill is even a high RB2 for more than just one season, he is a player that teams could start, and offer a relative lineup advantage compared to other the RB2s from other rosters in different leagues.
The RBBC non-repeat argument could also be misplaced with Hill, in the sense that Bernard and Hill don't both need to have 225-250 carries and get 8-12 TDs, for Hill to justify a pick higher than a low second. If Hill does, that is all that matters to Hill owners, not that Bernard didn't.
So again, if you think he isn't worth more than a low second, why keep shifting the narrative to "early" pick. Why does he need to put up elite numbers to justify a pick better than a low second. If he is low ceiling but high floor, and can be a consistent RB2, startable, you aren't facing teams with two top 10 RBs on a regular basis, you aren't spending a high pick, you aren't assured of getting a more productive player at the same or another position, why is that necessarily a wrong move. You haven't made that point in a convincing way, but alluded to it in vague and abstract ways (take a WR instead, trade the pick, etc.).
Regarding Freeman. First of all, you are in the consensus, you may be right and he could prove more valuable. But you have taken some people to task for making genralizations like, CIN is a good RBBC situation. You are making generalizations, too. How do we know ATL will be a good situation, next year or beyond? Maybe (probably?) Freeman will get an audition to play some role in the ATL ground game. If others don't think Freeman is as talented as Hill, he could be at an increased risk to become marginalized in yet another RBBC (only now you have a less talented RB in a RBBC than Hill in CIN) or outright replaced. For years they have had feature RBs with much better size, like Turner and Jackson. Just because they say Freeman has a three down skill set, doesn't make him to get a lock more than the 225-250 carries Hill could project to in the future (Hill may not get to that level either, but I'm not saying Freeman is the intrinsically inferior choice in all cases, as you seem to be implying in the converse instance). Many, many, many things could happen to blow up Freeman's value. If he isn't as talented as Hill, he may fail his audition altogether. Hill is less likely to fail his role, such as it is, if he is more talented. You seem to be assuming that ATL can't bring in a more talented RB to replace Freeman, even if he does OK. Being less talented increases the chance of this happening. You seem to be assuming ATL won't bring in another RB to be in a future RBBC, which could relegate him to a similar or worse role to Hill, only now you have a less talented RBBC member, and one that may not be as likely to score TDs because of his more diminutive stature.
The way you have put it, this is all very vague and abstract. You have put the RBBC under the microscope, but what are you positing in the place of Hill, with Freeman. How are you calculating the percentages that Freeman becomes a long term top 5-10 dynasty RB, especially when we have no idea what ATL will do next year or beyond (CIN at least looks to have future stability to recommend it). If we look at the recent top 5-10 RBs, how many were lacking in all three categories of size, speed, pedigree or some other compelling trait?
You can't make a blanket generalization that Freeman or a RB like Freeman is ALWAYS and NECESSARILY the better play, imo. You are expressing your opinion. It is no worse than anybody else's, but no better either. If Freeman ends up doing better than Hill for a longer period of time, you will be proven right, if not, you won't. That is the bottom line, you don't get to summarily declare victory before it happens.
If someone ALWAYS takes the higher upside player, and they bust a half decade in a row, than it didn't work out, it wasn't a good strategy in that case. I find it an artificial distinction, anyways, to think an owner would construct a roster in whch they ALWAYS take the high floor/lower ceiling player, and NEVER takes the low floor, higher ceiling player, as if it it isn't an option to employ a mix of strategies, accordinding to things like roster compostion as noted above, for instance.
You could be selling a box of empty hopes and promises if Freeman busts or is marginalized (I could be, too, with Hill, but again, I'm not the one saying your position is ALWAYS and NECESSARILY wrong, just trying to get others to weigh the alternatives before summarily dismissing one side). It is like that old game show. What if you could have a Mercedes Benz, it is just your for the taking (100% chance - Hill of course isn't guaranteed to be startable, but just to illustrate the point, bear with this for a moment). Or, behind the curtain, you could get an upgrade to a Rolls Royce, BUT, you could also get a donkey. Is it clear what is the best choice, ALWAYS and NECESSARILY? Of course not. At a minimum, to say something that definitive, you would need to make some effort to ascertain and communicate what the chances are of getting a Rolls Royce or a donkey, instead of just taking the Mercedes Benz. That is an analysis I haven't seen done in this context. In the absence of that, I would take the Mercedes, rather than the chance of a Rolls Royce that could turn into a donkey and becoming a game show punch line (is it a 10% chance, 5% chance of a Rolls Royce, 90-95% chance of a donkey, what is it?).
If you opt purely for opportunity over talent, how often does that work out where, just because there doesn't seem to be competition THIS YEAR, there isn't the next year or the year after, when that RB doesn't offer much to distinguish himself by way of size, speed, talent, pedigree, or some other compelling trait or attribute? It isn't enough to point out, well it happened here, and it happened there, etc. You have to stack up the few sucesses against the vastly greater number of outright failures or mixed results (RB never became top 5-10, the seemingly artificial standard you are holding Hill up to), and in some way account for them, in positing Freeman and RBs like him with similar opportunity ALWAYS and NECESSARILY must be the superior pick to Hill and RBs like him with similar opportunity.
Maybe, maybe not. If they do the same the only ones I see with more potential involvement are Jones and Eifert.
