You know who's really good? Jeremey hill, thats who. Hes a stud. I mean, so is Aj green. Oh, and eifert. He's a tier one talent. And so is gresham. And that marvin jones kid. What a beast he's turned out to be. And sanu, too. But man just look at that giovanni bernard.
Any lingering concerns about Gresham cutting deeply into Hill's touches?
Yes, on a fully stocked Cinci team he's just one more mouth getting fed. That's been my whole point all along.
And I answered it.
I asked to consider Gresham by himself a second time, after using phrases like fully stocked Cinci team and one more mouth to feed, which connoted that you weren't doing that (you were describing him additively in the context of all the other receiving weapons, not in isolation and by himself). Repeating yourself just reinforces that you seem to continue to misunderstand the question. Concern that GRESHAM will cut DEEPLY into Hill's touches hasn't been your point all along, and that is what I'm trying to ask.
In other words, if you knew nothing about CIN receiving weapons except that they had Gresham, would he be a reason to not draft Hill for many people? Probably not. Why? Because he isn't that great. He had a promising start to his career, but not too many people would call him one of the top TEs in the league now. If his presence wouldn't be a deal breaker in isolation as a marginal TE (if he is a TE2, he must be roster poison if you are consistent, right - he finished in about the 20s last year, and is in the 30s so far this season - or is it just RBs that are roster poison if they are less than elite #1 options at their position?), why would it make much incremental difference when added in with the others.
Put another way, if Gresham had been suspended all of 2014 (or leaves in free agency next year), would you all of a sudden think that Hill wasn't roster poison? I somehow find that dubious. What clearer evidence to yourself, if you need it, that he doesn't factor into your decision very much, if at all, and is a red herring (and frivolous objection*). You just don't like Hill period, because in your quaint terminology, he is roster poison. But for somebody evaluating Hill without that bias, if the presence of Bernard, Green, Jones and Eifert (primary receiving weapons, Sanu likely wouldn't have as prominent a role if Jones were healthy) hadn't dissuaded them from drafting Hill, and they were already inclined to do so, imo, there would be virtually NOBODY that that would say to themselves, OH NO, I FORGOT ABOUT GRESHAM, I WAS ALL SET TO TAKE HILL, BUT NOW I'LL HAVE TO PASS, BECAUSE HE IS SO DARN GOOD HE TIPS THE SCALES AGAINST THE PICK.
* If Gresham signs with ATL in 2015, how much does Hill surge up your board with the GAPING hole to the overall offense left by his departure? Zero? How much will Freeman drop with the insertion of Gresham into the offense. Not at all? If you are purportedly concerned about Gresham cutting DEEPLY into Hill's touches ("And I answered it"), but not Freeman, I don't think Gresham would explain that discrepancy (the constant in those two respective equations). It would speak more to the fact that you dislike Hill and like Freeman.