Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Jeremy Hill, RB (LVR) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter zed2283
- Start date
bostonfred
Footballguy
I keep thinking I'm going to open this thread some day and you're all going to admit that the situation played out exactly the way I said.
I know that's unrealistic, but it honestly amazes be that you guys actually think you've somehow been proven right so far this season. I tried. Good luck with your Jonathan Stewart. Maybe DeAngio bernard will leave in 2017 and he'll get his big chance.
I know that's unrealistic, but it honestly amazes be that you guys actually think you've somehow been proven right so far this season. I tried. Good luck with your Jonathan Stewart. Maybe DeAngio bernard will leave in 2017 and he'll get his big chance.
jurb26
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
We need a new DMS entry - NDD (Nuance Dissociative Disorder)Some of this is just clumsily binary.
If something isn't as hot as magma, it must be as cold as outer space. Obviously those are the only two possibilities.
If it is necessary to make up stuff or pretend other stuff didn't happen (pretending he didn't say Hill's value would go down by changing the subject repeatedly), or prop up transparent straw men to make a point, maybe the point wasn't worth making in the first place. The recent monologues have almost an air of desperation. Maybe he is trying to convince himself (since it isn't working on anybody else).
The near 90% of poll respondents that prefer Hill to Freeman must be suffering from a consensual hallucination, like some fantasy football version of Philip K. ****'s Ubik.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
Which weeks did you start him?
jurb26
Footballguy
In one league, every week. In another, here and there and I'd have to look it up.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You think we're going to say "if only I realized Jermaine Greschem was still on the roster, I never would have drafted Hill in the first place"?
or
"damn, I wish I would have drafted a guy that's failed so miserably that at least I wouldn't have been tempted to ever start him"?
You tried to play the victim before, claiming that everyone started personally attacking you (which like most of your observations in this thread is a serious stretch of the reality) because you had an unpopular opinion that was actually genius but the unwashed masses were too dim to comprehend it. And now you're the one that looks like the serious troll in this thread. Good work.
You say Jeremy Hill is a low upside RB and not worth rostering in a dynasty league, despite what he's done and the abilities that he's shown during his rookie season. Duly noted. We'll just agree to disagree and I'll move on.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
jurb26
Footballguy
He's looked great. He's outperformed Gio in just about every aspect this year except pass protection.
Last edited by a moderator:
Squintz82
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
As an objective observer here who has been following this thread as a learning opportunity (disclaimer: I don't own Gio, Hill, Freeman, etc)......I would say that you are doing a poor job of conveying your point simply, crisply.
Here is what I've taken from your initial view:
1. Hill would have an unreliable level of touches in the 2014 season. If Gio is hurt, Hill could get a lot of touches. Otherwise, he is likely to only get a bunch of touches in a blowout.
2. Because of this unreliability, many Hill owners will find it tough to decide whether or not to start Hill week-to-week. And many owners will choose wrong, only starting Hill after "good weeks" and benching him after "bad weeks".
3. Due to #1 and 2 above, Hill will lose value in 2014.
Is the above a decent articulation of your initial view?
I think this gets at why you (and I) are both saying that you were right. #1 and #2 above are spot on. This is exactly what has happened.
On the flip side, #3 hasn't held true. Because Hill has looked at least as good as Gio this year, and with Gio back this week Hill split touches with Gio. So now Hill's value seems to have risen. Which means that your "opponents" have a valid point that you were wrong on #3 above.
This is how I see it. Which probably means that nobody will like what I've written. But this is what I've taken from the 32-page thread so far.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Sorry, I didn't memorize the whole thread.jurb26 said:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I think this does a better job at making the point that he was trying to initially make, and no one would really argue it to be honest. Even the most ardent Hill supporter wouldn't have said that him going to a team that already had a good young back would be an ideal landing spot.Alex P Keaton said:
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Since this is a dynasty thread I'll just say that Hill will be only 24 when Gios contract expires.
bostonfred
Footballguy
That's a good start but I'd add a few things.
First, i believe his value has decreased from its peak, and will decrease further. The main reason his trade value peaked early was the gio injury, which gave hill an opportunity to showcase his talent.
Its easy to say right now that it's gone up, especially while that stretch is fresh in people's minds. But when we get to the offseason trade thread, I don't expect to see him routinely going for a first round pick (an upgrade from his late first, early second draft position). And after another year of committee nonsense, his value will drop again.
The only reason I mentioned his trade value dropping, by the way, was to address fruity pebbles point: his situation may suck until 2017, but then it gets better. Well, that may be true - if they don't sign gio to an extension. We don't know. But if you want to gamble on that future, then you have three years to wait for his value to dip. Drafting him, or trading for him right after a gio injury, are not good ways to maximize value. You only need his value to drop once in three years to get a better deal on him. You'd have to be very convinced he was an elite talent to not be willing to wait.
First, i believe his value has decreased from its peak, and will decrease further. The main reason his trade value peaked early was the gio injury, which gave hill an opportunity to showcase his talent.
Its easy to say right now that it's gone up, especially while that stretch is fresh in people's minds. But when we get to the offseason trade thread, I don't expect to see him routinely going for a first round pick (an upgrade from his late first, early second draft position). And after another year of committee nonsense, his value will drop again.
The only reason I mentioned his trade value dropping, by the way, was to address fruity pebbles point: his situation may suck until 2017, but then it gets better. Well, that may be true - if they don't sign gio to an extension. We don't know. But if you want to gamble on that future, then you have three years to wait for his value to dip. Drafting him, or trading for him right after a gio injury, are not good ways to maximize value. You only need his value to drop once in three years to get a better deal on him. You'd have to be very convinced he was an elite talent to not be willing to wait.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Since you intially said his value would go down, it hasn't. The ham-handed switcheroo to measure it relative to its peak is just more obfuscation. His value didn't decline (FROM WHEN YOU SAID IT) as you mistakenly predicted, not just because Gio was injured, but you left out the part about his having 150+ rushing yards twice in his three career starts, something Bernard has never done once in his career, despite a full season head start.
Maybe the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine ways of changing the subject should be another sign, even to yourself, that the point isn't worth making.
* Serious question, how many RBs in league history had two games with 150+ rushing yards in their first three starts (HAS to be a short list)? Lots of RBs in NFL history have been pressed into action to start for 2-3 games due to an injury. 99.999+% don't have multiple 150+ yard games. You left out that, related part, too.
** This is descending into a Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Black Knight scene reboot.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
Second, the issue isn't just unreliability. It's a predictably low ceiling with unreliable, high variance touches and the allure of underutilized talent.
His ceiling is predictably low because that offense is stacked with weapons, including Jermaine gresham and a bunch of other guys. That's right, Jermaine gresham is the only player I ever cited.
Oh, they also have aj green, Marvin jones, Mohammed sanu, Tyler eifert and gio bernard. Aj green had eleven touchdowns in 2012 and 2013. Marvin jones had 8 last year. Sanu has 5 and counting this year. Eifert had two as a rookie and he looks legit. Gresham has 3. All of these guys are young and improving.
How many touchdowns do you think Dalton can lead the Bengals offense to? For hill to be a dominant back, he would either need to get a bunch of those touchdowns at those guys' expense, or see the Bengals score a bunch more. But the offense is capped by Dalton, and Hill's piece of the touchdown pie is capped by gio, who gets goal line work of his own.
In 2014, Dalton had 15 touchdown passes and 4 rushing tds. Sanu has passed for a td, too. They also have 11 rushing tds from the running backs - 6 from hill, 5 from gio, although two of hill's tds were spotted while gio was hurt. In other words, it's a 50/50 split.
So hill's value comes from being the better between the tackles back, but in split duty. He's supposed to be the touchdown guy, but it hasn't materialized and he likely won't own that role outright. The total td output is capped by Dalton, and by the quality of weapons they can choose from, so it's unlikely the backs get 20+tds between them. And he gets a handful of receptions. That's a recipe for mediocrity.
But it's worse, because he looks pretty good. So now you need to decide if you should start him.
Your choices are: Never start him unless gio is hurt. Which worked out pretty well this year. But then you're paying a lot for "gio's backup". Start him every week, and accept mediocre rb numbers. Or try to time it. Which never works, but almost everyone does it. Because say he had a 96 yard game with a touchdown in week 2. You'd want to stay him the next week, when you get 34 and a td. Or another 90 and a td in week 12, followed by back to back turds of 53 and 64 total yards. If you bench him until he does well, then start him after his good game, you miss his good games, and only start him for his bad ones. And that's what I called roster poison.
His ceiling is predictably low because that offense is stacked with weapons, including Jermaine gresham and a bunch of other guys. That's right, Jermaine gresham is the only player I ever cited.
Oh, they also have aj green, Marvin jones, Mohammed sanu, Tyler eifert and gio bernard. Aj green had eleven touchdowns in 2012 and 2013. Marvin jones had 8 last year. Sanu has 5 and counting this year. Eifert had two as a rookie and he looks legit. Gresham has 3. All of these guys are young and improving.
How many touchdowns do you think Dalton can lead the Bengals offense to? For hill to be a dominant back, he would either need to get a bunch of those touchdowns at those guys' expense, or see the Bengals score a bunch more. But the offense is capped by Dalton, and Hill's piece of the touchdown pie is capped by gio, who gets goal line work of his own.
In 2014, Dalton had 15 touchdown passes and 4 rushing tds. Sanu has passed for a td, too. They also have 11 rushing tds from the running backs - 6 from hill, 5 from gio, although two of hill's tds were spotted while gio was hurt. In other words, it's a 50/50 split.
So hill's value comes from being the better between the tackles back, but in split duty. He's supposed to be the touchdown guy, but it hasn't materialized and he likely won't own that role outright. The total td output is capped by Dalton, and by the quality of weapons they can choose from, so it's unlikely the backs get 20+tds between them. And he gets a handful of receptions. That's a recipe for mediocrity.
But it's worse, because he looks pretty good. So now you need to decide if you should start him.
Your choices are: Never start him unless gio is hurt. Which worked out pretty well this year. But then you're paying a lot for "gio's backup". Start him every week, and accept mediocre rb numbers. Or try to time it. Which never works, but almost everyone does it. Because say he had a 96 yard game with a touchdown in week 2. You'd want to stay him the next week, when you get 34 and a td. Or another 90 and a td in week 12, followed by back to back turds of 53 and 64 total yards. If you bench him until he does well, then start him after his good game, you miss his good games, and only start him for his bad ones. And that's what I called roster poison.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
This is one of the ways you look desperate and/or disingenuous when trying to make your point. You act as if the Bengals are completely stacked at every skill position and there's no room for any other productive players when outside of AJ Green, they have players that range from "good" to "marginal" to "below average" - just like every team in the league.
Why wouldn't we discount Davante Freeman because the Falcons also have Roddy White, Julio Jones, Jaquizz Rodgers, Antone Smith, Levine Tololio and Harry Douglas on their roster?
bostonfred
Footballguy
Third, your goal in dynasty should not be to draft mediocre fantasy players, nor should it be to draft physical talent above all else. It should be to acquire elite fantasy players and win titles.
If I had a choice between an 90% chance if winning a thousand dollars or a 50% chance at sixteen hundred dollars, I'd take the 90% chance, for sure. But in dynasty, I'd rather take a 50% or lower chance at a 1600 yard running back than a 90% chance at a thousand yard back. It's hard to get elite players.
When you draft guys whose most likely outcome is to be a 1000 yard guy, you end up with a team that's loaded with mediocre options to choose from every week. And while the guy who takes a short on devonta freeman might not have won any games with him this year, the guys who took a shot on tre mason did. The Bengals systemically want to start two complementary backs. The rams don't. I'd much rather gamble on a guy with a shot at big upside than a guy with a high floor but low ceiling.
These guys are fond of making fun of me for liking freeman over hill, but truth be told, I still do. Because I can go hit a hill next year at a discounted rate, but if freeman gets that job next year, he ought be unattainable. That doesn't mean i think it's a sure thing that he will, just that I'm willing to gamble on a potential stud over a likely mediocre fantasy player.
And yes, gambling means sometimes you swing for the fences and strike out. But that's not just going to happen in a vacuum. As it turns out, I cut bait on freeman in the only league I owned him, in a buy low deal for lesean mccoy. I didn't get full value for Freeman (I gave another decent player and a projected mid first) but Im not afraid to make a mistake and move on if it doesn't work out. And I do still like freeman, and may try to get him back in that or other leagues because I do still see some chance at high upside in him.
I actually own hill (gasp!) in a 20 year old deep keeper league where nobody valued him headed into the year and i got him very cheap in our draft. We have big starting rosters, so mediocre players are a bit more valuable. But he still only saw my lineup when gio was hurt, and I actively tried to trade him before the deadline because I expect his value to drop way off. If I own a mediocre player, I'm looking to trade him for a buy low on any player I think has elite upside.
I do understand that hill has long term upside. But you have to use a draft pick or trade materiel, and three years of roster space, for a guy you don't want to start each week, in the hopes that he finds a better situation.
If I had a choice between an 90% chance if winning a thousand dollars or a 50% chance at sixteen hundred dollars, I'd take the 90% chance, for sure. But in dynasty, I'd rather take a 50% or lower chance at a 1600 yard running back than a 90% chance at a thousand yard back. It's hard to get elite players.
When you draft guys whose most likely outcome is to be a 1000 yard guy, you end up with a team that's loaded with mediocre options to choose from every week. And while the guy who takes a short on devonta freeman might not have won any games with him this year, the guys who took a shot on tre mason did. The Bengals systemically want to start two complementary backs. The rams don't. I'd much rather gamble on a guy with a shot at big upside than a guy with a high floor but low ceiling.
These guys are fond of making fun of me for liking freeman over hill, but truth be told, I still do. Because I can go hit a hill next year at a discounted rate, but if freeman gets that job next year, he ought be unattainable. That doesn't mean i think it's a sure thing that he will, just that I'm willing to gamble on a potential stud over a likely mediocre fantasy player.
And yes, gambling means sometimes you swing for the fences and strike out. But that's not just going to happen in a vacuum. As it turns out, I cut bait on freeman in the only league I owned him, in a buy low deal for lesean mccoy. I didn't get full value for Freeman (I gave another decent player and a projected mid first) but Im not afraid to make a mistake and move on if it doesn't work out. And I do still like freeman, and may try to get him back in that or other leagues because I do still see some chance at high upside in him.
I actually own hill (gasp!) in a 20 year old deep keeper league where nobody valued him headed into the year and i got him very cheap in our draft. We have big starting rosters, so mediocre players are a bit more valuable. But he still only saw my lineup when gio was hurt, and I actively tried to trade him before the deadline because I expect his value to drop way off. If I own a mediocre player, I'm looking to trade him for a buy low on any player I think has elite upside.
I do understand that hill has long term upside. But you have to use a draft pick or trade materiel, and three years of roster space, for a guy you don't want to start each week, in the hopes that he finds a better situation.
jurb26
Footballguy
No, this is what you called roster poison;
This went on and on for post after post and you essentially called anyone that was a RB2 and by your definition not having the "upside" of a RB1 roster poison.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
And all of that will be monstrously irrelevant if Hill's situation (carry distribution in the RBBC) doesn't remain EXACTLY the same next year as it was in the first 13 games of his rookie season, with no possibility of an uptick in usage if he proves the better pure runner to Bernard (who can get more receptions as a touch equalizer).
* If you were talking about Freeman, he has less than a 1% chance of ever being a 1,600 yard rusher. That was close, though, only off by about a COUPLE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
* If you were talking about Freeman, he has less than a 1% chance of ever being a 1,600 yard rusher. That was close, though, only off by about a COUPLE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
So why is it important to draft elite players? Because dynasty leagues, unlike redraft leagues, do not distribute elite players evenly. In a redraft league, every team only has one first round pick, one second, and so on. In dynasty, there are usually haves and have nots, where the haves stay the season with several elite players, and the have nots might have one or not have any. And as you approach the trade deadline, the elite teams are buying veterans for future draft picks, while the bad teams are looking for prospects.
What that means is that dynasty teams systemically penalize mediocrity. There are stacked teams every year, and you know that going in. You might not know who they're going to be right away, but you've got a pretty good inkling that the Aaron Rodgers, demaryius Thomas, eddie lacy owner (or whoever it might be) is going to make the playoffs and he will probably fill in his weakest roster spots with good veterans. If you know you are going to have to compete with that guy to win a title, then you need elite players too. Acquiring low upside players is a recipe for having a low upside team, maybe flirting with the playoffs or having an early exit.
That doesn't mean that owning hill will prevent you from ever winning, but the more mediocre, low upside players you take, the harder it is to build a stacked team. Swinging for the fences is almost always the preferred option. And like I said, if you really believe in hills talent, then be patient and get him later when his value dips, rather than holding a time share, touchdown dependent running back with capped upside.
What that means is that dynasty teams systemically penalize mediocrity. There are stacked teams every year, and you know that going in. You might not know who they're going to be right away, but you've got a pretty good inkling that the Aaron Rodgers, demaryius Thomas, eddie lacy owner (or whoever it might be) is going to make the playoffs and he will probably fill in his weakest roster spots with good veterans. If you know you are going to have to compete with that guy to win a title, then you need elite players too. Acquiring low upside players is a recipe for having a low upside team, maybe flirting with the playoffs or having an early exit.
That doesn't mean that owning hill will prevent you from ever winning, but the more mediocre, low upside players you take, the harder it is to build a stacked team. Swinging for the fences is almost always the preferred option. And like I said, if you really believe in hills talent, then be patient and get him later when his value dips, rather than holding a time share, touchdown dependent running back with capped upside.
Hu-Tang Clan
Footballguy
I wish this thread had some insightful info on Jeremy Hill as opposed to just back and forth arguing. Oh well....
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Elite players like Freeman, who you never want to start because they haven't done anything, which causes their value to plummet.
Chasing opportunity leads to dynasty value poison.
Passing on superior talent misses out on the value surge when they seize the opportunity (like, with two 150+ yard rushing games in three career starts).
Drafting a player like Hill doesn't mean everybody always drafts players exactly like Hill in profile, and their roster is 100% comprised of that type, which is another convoluted, binary strawman argument, as if almost universally teams don't have a mix of types of prospects (a concept people, I don't know, in more than one dynasty league may be more acquainted with).
Chasing opportunity leads to dynasty value poison.
Passing on superior talent misses out on the value surge when they seize the opportunity (like, with two 150+ yard rushing games in three career starts).
Drafting a player like Hill doesn't mean everybody always drafts players exactly like Hill in profile, and their roster is 100% comprised of that type, which is another convoluted, binary strawman argument, as if almost universally teams don't have a mix of types of prospects (a concept people, I don't know, in more than one dynasty league may be more acquainted with).
bostonfred
Footballguy
Matt Ryan is better than Dalton, their line will be a lot better when its healthy, their only competition at the goal line is roddy and Julio, and Roddy us getting old, and they play in a traditionally offensive division, while the Bengals play in the defensive focused afc north. But this is a good segue to my other point - the path to a starting job. Freeman had several paths: He could get the job by default if sjax underperforms, he could win the job by playing the best right away, he could grow in to the job and take over midseason, or he could take the job next year. Unfortunately for him, he didn't take over right away, and sjax got hurt and he still didn't take the job, and he didn't take over by offseason, either. Now his only path is to win the job next year. Had gee succeeded, the Falcons wouldn't have been as likely to bring in strong competition, but now they will. Still, he has a path. And if he gets that job, with a healthy o line and minimal competition, he could still be a stud. The odds have gone way down, but they're there.
Hill never had all those paths. He might outperform gio and all share carries because they ate complementary backs. Gio is only a second year player himself, so they're locked in together for three years, unlike sjax, who is gone next year both because of his age and his contract. The only path hill has to a full time gig, all to himself, is for gio to get hurt or to suck so bad in comparison to hill that they give up on him. And that's a pipe dream that a lot of guys in this thread seen to share. Otherwise, he's going to be mediocreuntil 2017 at the earliest - assuming the Bengals don't resign gio.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Again, Hill doesn't have to have a "full time gig" (how many RBs have that - is that how you are defining roster poison now, not having a full time gig, you are playing switchey changey with the definitions, which you probably wouldn't need to do so much, with the binary straw man arguments, and keep tripping over the contradictions from fabrications generated by contradictions from previous fabrications, into a twisted logic that resembled the offspring of a pretzel and a moebius strip, if the point was an actually valid one) to not be roster posion.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
Jurb, thanks for asking why an rb2 is roster poison. That's a great question.
The problem isn't that "all guys who finish the season worse than top ten are worthless". I think that's how you're interpreting it, but that's lot the issue at all.
The problem is that there are way more than ten "top ten" running backs.
Adrian Peterson sure looked like one. So did zac Stacy and Montee ball and maybe even ray rice, or Doug Martin and Trent Richardson, last year. Sometimes guys just blow it.
Or maybe you had lesean mccoy, then watched him put up brutally bad games when the Eagles d scored twice or even three times in the first half, or when he faced a resurgent Seattle d.
Our maybe your guys got hurt. It native you picked up a guy like Ronnie Hillman, or cj Anderson, who had top ten upside if they got their jobs. Or forsett. Or any of a number of guys who got "lucky" for a while.
The problem isn't that you had rb15 on your roster, it's that you have a guy who you projected to give you rb 15 scoring while healthy for all 16 games.
Of course, hill could be top ten, too, if gio got hurt. But he's way more expensive than other "backup running backs". And unlike those the guys, he will tempt you to start him and chase points and screw yourself at some point in the season. Or even to start him every week. From what you said earlier, jurb, you did both, and that means you definitely got worse production from one of your starting running back slots than whichever guys in your league didn't deliberately start a systemically mediocre player.
That doesn't mean that everyone who has a good running back gets good running back production from them. Ask a Peterson owner.
But somebody in every league in America has two or three running backs better than hill in their lineup every single week. Why would you want to start a guy like that? And if you wouldn't want to start him, why would you want to own him? And if the only reason you want to own him is for his 2017 upside, why would you want to pay 2014 prices for him?
The problem isn't that "all guys who finish the season worse than top ten are worthless". I think that's how you're interpreting it, but that's lot the issue at all.
The problem is that there are way more than ten "top ten" running backs.
Adrian Peterson sure looked like one. So did zac Stacy and Montee ball and maybe even ray rice, or Doug Martin and Trent Richardson, last year. Sometimes guys just blow it.
Or maybe you had lesean mccoy, then watched him put up brutally bad games when the Eagles d scored twice or even three times in the first half, or when he faced a resurgent Seattle d.
Our maybe your guys got hurt. It native you picked up a guy like Ronnie Hillman, or cj Anderson, who had top ten upside if they got their jobs. Or forsett. Or any of a number of guys who got "lucky" for a while.
The problem isn't that you had rb15 on your roster, it's that you have a guy who you projected to give you rb 15 scoring while healthy for all 16 games.
Of course, hill could be top ten, too, if gio got hurt. But he's way more expensive than other "backup running backs". And unlike those the guys, he will tempt you to start him and chase points and screw yourself at some point in the season. Or even to start him every week. From what you said earlier, jurb, you did both, and that means you definitely got worse production from one of your starting running back slots than whichever guys in your league didn't deliberately start a systemically mediocre player.
That doesn't mean that everyone who has a good running back gets good running back production from them. Ask a Peterson owner.
But somebody in every league in America has two or three running backs better than hill in their lineup every single week. Why would you want to start a guy like that? And if you wouldn't want to start him, why would you want to own him? And if the only reason you want to own him is for his 2017 upside, why would you want to pay 2014 prices for him?
jurb26
Footballguy
How can you even remotely justify this statement. I don't think I play in a single league where every team has 2 or 3 RBs better than Hill, who is RB18 mind you, in their lineup every single week. I don't even know if that's true for ANY team in any of the leagues I play in.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
I like a guy like Hill because in my naked eye test of actually watching him all year, I think he has elite ability. There's nothing he can't do imo. Run through you, run around you, great vision, good hands, patient, good small space moves for a man his size. The downside is obviously he shares time. But we've already seen his upside when Gio went down. In those 4 weeks he scored 76 points in my .5 ppr league. #4 RB over that time frame. Prorates to over 300 points for the season. Only 3 backs are going to achieve that this year. In dynasty I'd rather invest in a guy who I know can do it, the opportunity will come if you're good enough
Not me, he's been in my lineup in one league for most of the year. Hasn't done great but has gotten me some points. Team should be making the playoffs.
bostonfred
Footballguy
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.
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.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Its ok to read things again if you don't understand them the first time, jurb. Sometimes you see a word like "somebody" and it looks just like "everybody". Is funny, because you just did the exact same thing Bob did last time on the exact same point. Both of you guys are so quick to look for something to argue that you completely missed one of the most important points I'm trying to make.Again: every 2014 nfl fantasy football league has Arian Foster, Demarco Murray, Jamaal Charles, etc. Every one. Check your league rosters, i bet some team in your league has one of those guys.
Chances are good that one of those teams also has another stud back - maybe not foster AND Charles, but maybe foster and mccoy, or Charles and lynch, or something similar. And to win your league, you need to beat that guy. There might even be a couple stacked teams like that.
In a redraft league, that's bad enough, but in a dynasty, that guy can also trade picks for veteran receivers or qbs (or if he's strong at wr, he can add veteran backs, etc.) So the stacked teams in a dynasty league teens to be even stronger than the stacked teams in a redraft league, because they can buy reinforcements. (And consequently, the weak teams are often weaker, especially by the end of the year)
If you want to win your league, you have to be that guy or beat that guy. I would rather be that guy, personally. But you know going in that there will be at least one, and probably a couple, very strong teams.
When you draft and start a mediocre fantasy player, you are handicapping yourself against those top teams. Their lineup might have six really good guys, and yours has five really good guys and one mediocre guy. It's a systemic handicap when you deliberately acquire players who aren't good fantasy options.
That's a critical point.
It's fine to have developmental guys on your dynasty roster, but roster spots and draft picks are precious. Using them on guys who are going to be mediocre until 2017 makes it harder for you to win from now until 2017. Because there is always, always, always going to be a strong team in the playoffs that you have to beat, and those teams are often even stronger in dynasty leagues.
If you can get that exact same player in 2015 - or better yet 2016 - for the same price or cheaper, you should wait as long as you can to acquire them.
And let me reiterate, I'm not saying hill can never pan out or that he's not very talented. I just think it's a huge mistake to draft guys like that. Shiny pennies lose their luster. Buy them as late as you possibly can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you thought of trying to condense your posts so that they are more user friendly?
jurb26
Footballguy
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.
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.
Louche
Footballguy
@bostonfred
I feel like you're disregarding a couple things about fantasy football and the NFL:
1.) There is a wide variety of dynasty formats so to categorically say that Hill hasn't been startable on a consistent basis is kind of strange. Let's say owners put him into their starting lineup in week 9 after Gio went down. In PPR Hill has been the weekly RB3, RB35, RB8, RB13, RB31 and RB23. And yes, I know those numbers don't necessarily sound overly impressive but remember that these are the weekly scores which includes a lot of fluke weekly options that hardly anyone would be starting; like Turbin, Helu, Marcel Reece etc. In total over the period he has been RB number 8 since week 9. In standard leagues he is RB number 7 since week nine and number 14 on the entire season. What on earth do you mean by roster poison? Do you play in start 1 RB leagues? Or is your team stacked at RB? If it is, why did you even draft Hill in the first place and why didn't you trade him when he broke out?
I play in 12 team leagues, 16 team leagues, 32 team leagues, leagues where it only makes sense to start 1 RB every week because of scoring, leagues where you ideally want to start 3 RBs every week, and most of my leagues are IDP. In one league you're starting 2-4 RBs, 4-5 WRs, 1-2 TEs plus 11 IDP positions. In a league such as this Hill has been a fantastic weekly starter all year. So you can't just make broad statements that are universally true for all fantasy leagues. With deeper and more complex formats there are many ways to win championships and it's a totally legit and popular strategy to punt RB and focus on other positions.
He is around RB number 20 in average ppg. So in a week where every RB is healthy he is a low RB2 in 12 team leagues. And who was starting him since week 1? No one was. Since week 9 his average is the 11th highest among RBs. Seriously, if it's not start 1 RB I don't see how you can be so negative on his production this season. I don't own Hill in any of my leagues but I'd much rather have Hill than Freeman if I could go back and pick either one of them with an early 2nd rounder. I'd go WR of course...but if I had to choose between the two I'd go Hill.
2.) You're right that there is variance to Hill's production, but you fail to mention that this is the case for most players in the NFL. It's a weekly game where any star will put up stinkers from time to time; Peyton, AJ Green, Calvin, Jimmy Graham, Lesean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, they've all made owners lose fantasy games this season. But the idea is that hopefully other players hit on those weeks so that you'll win regardless. And that week when Hill is RB #3 he hopefully won you that week.
3.) You seem to operate in a world where the NFL is not an incredibly volatile and cut-throat business . It seems like you take for granted that ATL will not bring in any more offensive talent around Matt Ryan after Tony and Roddy are gone so that it's simply next man up, and you seem to operate from a place where you know how the Bengals offense will look like next year. A couple months ago we thought the Bengals offense this season would be AJ Green, Marvin Jones, Tyler Eifert and Gio Bernard. All of them have been injured and/or less effective than we thought for large parts of the season. How can you know what will happen next year with such certainty?
I feel like you're disregarding a couple things about fantasy football and the NFL:
1.) There is a wide variety of dynasty formats so to categorically say that Hill hasn't been startable on a consistent basis is kind of strange. Let's say owners put him into their starting lineup in week 9 after Gio went down. In PPR Hill has been the weekly RB3, RB35, RB8, RB13, RB31 and RB23. And yes, I know those numbers don't necessarily sound overly impressive but remember that these are the weekly scores which includes a lot of fluke weekly options that hardly anyone would be starting; like Turbin, Helu, Marcel Reece etc. In total over the period he has been RB number 8 since week 9. In standard leagues he is RB number 7 since week nine and number 14 on the entire season. What on earth do you mean by roster poison? Do you play in start 1 RB leagues? Or is your team stacked at RB? If it is, why did you even draft Hill in the first place and why didn't you trade him when he broke out?
I play in 12 team leagues, 16 team leagues, 32 team leagues, leagues where it only makes sense to start 1 RB every week because of scoring, leagues where you ideally want to start 3 RBs every week, and most of my leagues are IDP. In one league you're starting 2-4 RBs, 4-5 WRs, 1-2 TEs plus 11 IDP positions. In a league such as this Hill has been a fantastic weekly starter all year. So you can't just make broad statements that are universally true for all fantasy leagues. With deeper and more complex formats there are many ways to win championships and it's a totally legit and popular strategy to punt RB and focus on other positions.
He is around RB number 20 in average ppg. So in a week where every RB is healthy he is a low RB2 in 12 team leagues. And who was starting him since week 1? No one was. Since week 9 his average is the 11th highest among RBs. Seriously, if it's not start 1 RB I don't see how you can be so negative on his production this season. I don't own Hill in any of my leagues but I'd much rather have Hill than Freeman if I could go back and pick either one of them with an early 2nd rounder. I'd go WR of course...but if I had to choose between the two I'd go Hill.
2.) You're right that there is variance to Hill's production, but you fail to mention that this is the case for most players in the NFL. It's a weekly game where any star will put up stinkers from time to time; Peyton, AJ Green, Calvin, Jimmy Graham, Lesean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, they've all made owners lose fantasy games this season. But the idea is that hopefully other players hit on those weeks so that you'll win regardless. And that week when Hill is RB #3 he hopefully won you that week.
3.) You seem to operate in a world where the NFL is not an incredibly volatile and cut-throat business . It seems like you take for granted that ATL will not bring in any more offensive talent around Matt Ryan after Tony and Roddy are gone so that it's simply next man up, and you seem to operate from a place where you know how the Bengals offense will look like next year. A couple months ago we thought the Bengals offense this season would be AJ Green, Marvin Jones, Tyler Eifert and Gio Bernard. All of them have been injured and/or less effective than we thought for large parts of the season. How can you know what will happen next year with such certainty?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
What would be useful to you? This is a message board thread, of course there's going to be discussion. Rotoworld or some other news site will give you just straight news or updates.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
bfred loves fishing trips. Nothing to see here.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
bostonfred
Footballguy
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.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
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.
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.
Similar threads
