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) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter zed2283
- Start date
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Fair enough. I missed that u mentioned that but you post mile long text and don't bring it up in your ypc comparisons that I read most recently. Hill has above avg skills in certain areas like short yardage and size, but those do not make him feature back material,more like LenDale white material, effective in certain situations, use able. I never said hill was bad, just average.Bob Magaw said:Already noted in post #2623 above, unlike you, I've extended credit where it is due, why act like I didn't already say this, would that be, I don't know, disingenuous?mnmplayer said:
"It would be one-sided and remiss to not point out Bernard's receiving skills and prowess. I've said before he is one of the most natural and talented receiving backs I've seen in the past few decades since Faulk, Westbrook and Bush (high praise from me). In his first three seasons, he has averaged about 50 receptions and 450 receiving yards, which enhances his value in (more typical) PPR leagues."
Any data that makes Hill look bad is retained, and that would cast him in a positive light is ignored. Any data that makes Bernard look good is retained, and that would cast him in a negative light is ignored. Stats are honored or not selectively and according to whim. Narrative fit is the only criteria employed. Signs of the true believer. The EXACT SAME data (most of Hill's 2014 rushing yards came in four games, most of Bernard's 2015 rushing AND receiving yards came in four games, Hill had bad games in 2014, Bernard had bad games in 2015) is used to interpret Hill in a negative light, but not Bernard. Another sign of a true believer. Clear differences in Hill between 2014 and 2015 are suppressed to conform to the narrative. True believer.
What value add did Bernard provide in games when he averaged sub-2.0 and sub-3.0 rushing yards against near bottom 10 Rams and bottom 5 49ers rush defenses in the past five weeks (what does your "situational analysis" reveal about those games?). Why did a few bad games by Hill last year make him JAG, but not the few bad games by Bernard this year (yard per carry average-wise)? You keep talking about how different backs could be interpreted differently because of different teams, play calling, blocking, opponents. Hill and Bernard play on the SAME team, have the SAME coaching, the SAME opponents. Bernard did better this year so you arbitrarily and selectively emphasize that with transparent bias. Hill did better last year, so you arbitrarily and selectively deemphasize that with transparent bias. If Hill does good he was lucky, if he does bad, that is what was supposed to happen, he is playing down to his "actual", "real" level. If Bernard does bad, he was unlucky, if he does good, he is playing up to his "actual", "real" level. Discernible, of course, respectively, by mystical eye test goggles, that filter selective and biased information according to the narrative (even by hatchet job standards, this is clumsy and ham handed material).
* You keep bringing up Asiata. He has't had sustained success (like Hill leading the NFL in rushing TDs since 2014). Also, he isn't the only RB in league history with 3 rushing TDs in 3-4 games, so another off the mark comp (in the context of Hill being the only rookie RB ever with four 145+ rushing yard games).
While I still think your interpretation of Hills effectiveness in 2014 is off-base, it's not semantics, it's two very different things.
Saying "I had a feeling back in 2014 that he wasn't as good as his stats made him look" is NOT REMOTELY CLOSE to the same as "I provided carry by carry analysis to show Hill was just a JAG last year and its proving right again this year as well."
If you had made the first statement, I would have still disagreed with your take, but there would have been no proof that you didn't have that feeling, b/c it is all there in last years posts.
But you didn't, you made a boastful a claim about your "analysis" of the situation, and challenged anyone to look it up, refusing to provide the evidence that your boast was correct. When I provided the evidence that your boast was incorrect, you claim, "oh, but I meant something other than what I actually said, you're just arguing semantics."
georg013
Footballguy
So you are going on record now and saying David Johnson is the real deal like Hill owners were last year? Just clarifying.
You didn't analyze anything, like you claimed to have done . You cut & pasted play-by-play, then said "he didn't do anything more than any other RB would have done." You didn't provide any legitimate criticism, you didn't provide any support, you didn't provide any logical basis for your claim.
And "pretty much everything I posted on hill has supported that claim since 2014?" You stopped posting when he started blowing up at the end of 2014! You didn't post again until last week. Nothing in any thread about Hill/Gio/Cincy RB situation. Nothing in any thread where you reiterate this brilliant analysis of yours that he's JAG, until after you believe you're right. Then you try to point back and say, "see, I knew it, sort of...I mean I kind of said something similar to that before I vanished for a year, and even though I didn't actually say what I claim to have said, I still deserve some credit." Never mind that your logic, when applied to other players (Gurley, Gio, etc) is dismissed, BY YOU.
It's not semantics, it's idiotic.
georg013
Footballguy
Is he the read deal or not? Can you take a stance on him one way or the other? Thanks in advance.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
It is an option to not call people disingenuous over what you DIDN'T read, but than you admitted being too lazy to retrieve your own material, so not a surprise that would extend to the work of others.Fair enough. I missed that u mentioned that but you post mile long text and don't bring it up in your ypc comparisons that I read most recently. Hill has above avg skills in certain areas like short yardage and size, but those do not make him feature back material,more like LenDale white material, effective in certain situations, use able. I never said hill was bad, just average.Bob Magaw said:Already noted in post #2623 above, unlike you, I've extended credit where it is due, why act like I didn't already say this, would that be, I don't know, disingenuous?mnmplayer said:
"It would be one-sided and remiss to not point out Bernard's receiving skills and prowess. I've said before he is one of the most natural and talented receiving backs I've seen in the past few decades since Faulk, Westbrook and Bush (high praise from me). In his first three seasons, he has averaged about 50 receptions and 450 receiving yards, which enhances his value in (more typical) PPR leagues."
Any data that makes Hill look bad is retained, and that would cast him in a positive light is ignored. Any data that makes Bernard look good is retained, and that would cast him in a negative light is ignored. Stats are honored or not selectively and according to whim. Narrative fit is the only criteria employed. Signs of the true believer. The EXACT SAME data (most of Hill's 2014 rushing yards came in four games, most of Bernard's 2015 rushing AND receiving yards came in four games, Hill had bad games in 2014, Bernard had bad games in 2015) is used to interpret Hill in a negative light, but not Bernard. Another sign of a true believer. Clear differences in Hill between 2014 and 2015 are suppressed to conform to the narrative. True believer.
What value add did Bernard provide in games when he averaged sub-2.0 and sub-3.0 rushing yards against near bottom 10 Rams and bottom 5 49ers rush defenses in the past five weeks (what does your "situational analysis" reveal about those games?). Why did a few bad games by Hill last year make him JAG, but not the few bad games by Bernard this year (yard per carry average-wise)? You keep talking about how different backs could be interpreted differently because of different teams, play calling, blocking, opponents. Hill and Bernard play on the SAME team, have the SAME coaching, the SAME opponents. Bernard did better this year so you arbitrarily and selectively emphasize that with transparent bias. Hill did better last year, so you arbitrarily and selectively deemphasize that with transparent bias. If Hill does good he was lucky, if he does bad, that is what was supposed to happen, he is playing down to his "actual", "real" level. If Bernard does bad, he was unlucky, if he does good, he is playing up to his "actual", "real" level. Discernible, of course, respectively, by mystical eye test goggles, that filter selective and biased information according to the narrative (even by hatchet job standards, this is clumsy and ham handed material).
* You keep bringing up Asiata. He has't had sustained success (like Hill leading the NFL in rushing TDs since 2014). Also, he isn't the only RB in league history with 3 rushing TDs in 3-4 games, so another off the mark comp (in the context of Hill being the only rookie RB ever with four 145+ rushing yard games).
My biggest issues in taking your narrative seriously is your insistence that Hill ran exactly the same in 2014 and 2015 but just got luckier in 2014, which is obviously wrong (also, the bizarre double standard habit of claiming a few bad games reflects poorly on Hill but not Bernard, performing "situation analysis" on Hill's bad games but not Bernard's bad games - for instance, what did it reveal to you about his games under 2 and 3 yards per carry against the Rams and 49ers in the past five weeks?). I realize you're keen on putting over this fabrication to maintain the I told you so myth. Unfortunately, you can't bluff, or posture or trick people into believing something that clearly isn't true (if you can, more power to you, but that would speak more to your salesmanship persistence and tenacity than scouting acumen - that said, I don't think you are fooling too many people here).
Same with repetition, it isn't going to hypnotize people into forgetting that 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. You can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times. 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. Hill in 2015 did not = Hill in 2014.
If you called Gurley a JAG (you didn't say he was, but you also didn't say he wasn't, disturbing in itself, highlights are all that are needed to tell he has immensely more talent than Dion Lewis - anyways, hypothetically, to illustrate the concept), and he chopped off a foot in a lumberjack accident in the off-season, and returned for the next decade, but never recaptured that original form, and you claimed each year, I told ya so, I told ya so, I told ya so, you would be wrong every single year thereafter - due to your initial blunder. The combination of an initial misread of the situation, coupled with an inability or unwillingness to recognize changed circumstances, would cause you to serially conflate future struggles with some sort of fulfillment of and vindication of your "prescience". When in actuality, your reasons and analysis were profoundly flawed in the first place. Just because subsequent UNRELATED circumstances lead to a superficial overlap with your (*COUGH*) predicted (*COUGH*) outcome, doesn't mean there was a causal connection between your flawed reasons and analysis and how things ultimately unfolded.
* We're stuck in a loop, and I have nothing further to add to this particular exchange, so Happy New Year, good luck with the narrative.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Context is everything. As we all know numbers can be misleading without context. I gave context to his inflated YPC, indicating that when needed most he did not produce, did not showing anything, did not do anything on his own, did not add anything over and above what some JAG would offer. A guy could look at those game stat totals I analyzed and say, 4.6 ypc is decent! What I did was analyze and give context to his previous "good" game where he did nothing for 3.5 quarters and then got a lucky run in I formation that any JAG could have taken to the house through that enormous hole (by using game footage).
Here is the definition of analyze: "examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, especially information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation."
In this case I "examined" every contextual carry he made showing ineffectiveness then interpreted he was nothing special or at least had shown nothing special. On the surface one could look at the totals and say he had a good game. I gave context to his performance to reason to why it wasn't as good as it appeared. I took an opposing stance that Hill was NOT good in spite of his YPC and gave contextual "analyzation" as defined in the Webster dictionary showing as such.
And I didn't come running into this thread after any of Hill's horrible games this year either and it would have been easy with such low hanging fruit as he had numerous bad games this year. I don't have some vendetta against him, and usually focus on guys that are on my team or guys I want on my team and this guy definitely was neither. I didn't comment on his good or bad games until the season was over and he had another full season of tape on him. Now just putting a bookmark on this guy as a Jag with some end of season commentary highlighting why I wouldn't get excited about his ypc.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Why? This is a Hill thread. The only thing that would be is pissing in the pool. So what's next a sig bet?
LOL In this thread I have shown why Hill's YPC was inflated last season and why I call him a JAG after another season of tape on him. He is just not that good. He could be productive if Gio left as he is on a good team and would likely get most of the carries, but the same could be said of any JAG. Nothing special.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Hyperbole. Remember I am not making any claims about Gurley or Gio or Dion Lewis. I said Hill is a JAG and I gave reason as to why he had an inflated YPC last year. If you can't deal with that or don't like my reasoning then that's fine. You can draft him again next year and I will draft someone else.It is an option to not call people disingenuous over what you DIDN'T read, but than you admitted being too lazy to retrieve your own material, so not a surprise that would extend to the work of others.Fair enough. I missed that u mentioned that but you post mile long text and don't bring it up in your ypc comparisons that I read most recently. Hill has above avg skills in certain areas like short yardage and size, but those do not make him feature back material,more like LenDale white material, effective in certain situations, use able. I never said hill was bad, just average.Already noted in post #2623 above, unlike you, I've extended credit where it is due, why act like I didn't already say this, would that be, I don't know, disingenuous?
"It would be one-sided and remiss to not point out Bernard's receiving skills and prowess. I've said before he is one of the most natural and talented receiving backs I've seen in the past few decades since Faulk, Westbrook and Bush (high praise from me). In his first three seasons, he has averaged about 50 receptions and 450 receiving yards, which enhances his value in (more typical) PPR leagues."
Any data that makes Hill look bad is retained, and that would cast him in a positive light is ignored. Any data that makes Bernard look good is retained, and that would cast him in a negative light is ignored. Stats are honored or not selectively and according to whim. Narrative fit is the only criteria employed. Signs of the true believer. The EXACT SAME data (most of Hill's 2014 rushing yards came in four games, most of Bernard's 2015 rushing AND receiving yards came in four games, Hill had bad games in 2014, Bernard had bad games in 2015) is used to interpret Hill in a negative light, but not Bernard. Another sign of a true believer. Clear differences in Hill between 2014 and 2015 are suppressed to conform to the narrative. True believer.
What value add did Bernard provide in games when he averaged sub-2.0 and sub-3.0 rushing yards against near bottom 10 Rams and bottom 5 49ers rush defenses in the past five weeks (what does your "situational analysis" reveal about those games?). Why did a few bad games by Hill last year make him JAG, but not the few bad games by Bernard this year (yard per carry average-wise)? You keep talking about how different backs could be interpreted differently because of different teams, play calling, blocking, opponents. Hill and Bernard play on the SAME team, have the SAME coaching, the SAME opponents. Bernard did better this year so you arbitrarily and selectively emphasize that with transparent bias. Hill did better last year, so you arbitrarily and selectively deemphasize that with transparent bias. If Hill does good he was lucky, if he does bad, that is what was supposed to happen, he is playing down to his "actual", "real" level. If Bernard does bad, he was unlucky, if he does good, he is playing up to his "actual", "real" level. Discernible, of course, respectively, by mystical eye test goggles, that filter selective and biased information according to the narrative (even by hatchet job standards, this is clumsy and ham handed material).
* You keep bringing up Asiata. He has't had sustained success (like Hill leading the NFL in rushing TDs since 2014). Also, he isn't the only RB in league history with 3 rushing TDs in 3-4 games, so another off the mark comp (in the context of Hill being the only rookie RB ever with four 145+ rushing yard games).
My biggest issues in taking your narrative seriously is your insistence that Hill ran exactly the same in 2014 and 2015 but just got luckier in 2014, which is obviously wrong (also, the bizarre double standard habit of claiming a few bad games reflects poorly on Hill but not Bernard, performing "situation analysis" on Hill's bad games but not Bernard's bad games - for instance, what did it reveal to you about his games under 2 and 3 yards per carry against the Rams and 49ers in the past five weeks?). I realize you're keen on putting over this fabrication to maintain the I told you so myth. Unfortunately, you can't bluff, or posture or trick people into believing something that clearly isn't true (if you can, more power to you, but that would speak more to your salesmanship persistence and tenacity than scouting acumen - that said, I don't think you are fooling too many people here).
Same with repetition, it isn't going to hypnotize people into forgetting that 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. You can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times. 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. Hill in 2015 did not = Hill in 2014.
If you called Gurley a JAG (you didn't say he was, but you also didn't say he wasn't, disturbing in itself, highlights are all that are needed to tell he has immensely more talent than Dion Lewis - anyways, hypothetically, to illustrate the concept), and he chopped off a foot in a lumberjack accident in the off-season, and returned for the next decade, but never recaptured that original form, and you claimed each year, I told ya so, I told ya so, I told ya so, you would be wrong every single year thereafter - due to your initial blunder. The combination of an initial misread of the situation, coupled with an inability or unwillingness to recognize changed circumstances, would cause you to serially conflate future struggles with some sort of fulfillment of and vindication of your "prescience". When in actuality, your reasons and analysis were profoundly flawed in the first place. Just because subsequent UNRELATED circumstances lead to a superficial overlap with your (*COUGH*) predicted (*COUGH*) outcome, doesn't mean there was a causal connection between your flawed reasons and analysis and how things ultimately unfolded.
* We're stuck in a loop, and I have nothing further to add to this particular exchange, so Happy New Year, good luck with the narrative.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Oh don't get me started. I didn't see the game, but did manage to see the highlight of his "big play" TD so that is what I will "analyze". He almost got ran down from behind (showing lack of speed) and also wasn't touched on that well blocked run. If the distance was only a few yards or two longer he simply wouldn't have scored for his lack of speed. It didn't do anything to make me think he was anything more than the JAG in the right place at the right time on a well blocked play. He didn't create that TD, his blocking did.
9 men were on the LOS so getting past those 9 guys was handled by his team, not him and he almost was caught by the last defender on that side of the field.
I formation, he simply followed his (FB #44) lead block (no showing of patience, no broken tackles, no jukes. In fairness none of these things were necessary)
On the 2nd level he picked up another stellar block by #70
The only thing he showed me was that he was able to follow a block which any JAG can do and has a slower than average top gear. I would venture to say that more than 50% (the definition of average) of the RBs in the league would score on that play, so that means that even a below average RB like Mike Gillislee or Alfred Blue most likely would have followed those blocks to a score. Remember that even a JAG in the NFL is the best player on the team usually on up through college. These guys are good enough to read two blocks and take that one to the house. Doesn't mean they are special. To be above a JAG you need to show special abilities. Show me something he has done (something on tape) that makes you say, "WOW, this guy is special" and tell me why he is special rather than citing all these meaningless 2014 stats compiled against horrible defenses.
To be above average you need to be more effective than the rest of the league and in FFB 12 man teams limit this even more as low end RBs are not even considered.
I went an told you why he isn't special.
Here is the play: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016010302/2015/REG17/ravens@bengals#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000614157&tab=videos
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Posturing. I made that clear, it was illustrating a concept, again, no need to act like I didn't already say that. What did you call that - disingenuous?Hyperbole. Remember I am not making any claims about Gurley or Gio or Dion Lewis. I said Hill is a JAG and I gave reason as to why he had an inflated YPC last year. If you can't deal with that or don't like my reasoning then that's fine. You can draft him again next year and I will draft someone else.It is an option to not call people disingenuous over what you DIDN'T read, but than you admitted being too lazy to retrieve your own material, so not a surprise that would extend to the work of others.Fair enough. I missed that u mentioned that but you post mile long text and don't bring it up in your ypc comparisons that I read most recently. Hill has above avg skills in certain areas like short yardage and size, but those do not make him feature back material,more like LenDale white material, effective in certain situations, use able. I never said hill was bad, just average.Already noted in post #2623 above, unlike you, I've extended credit where it is due, why act like I didn't already say this, would that be, I don't know, disingenuous?
"It would be one-sided and remiss to not point out Bernard's receiving skills and prowess. I've said before he is one of the most natural and talented receiving backs I've seen in the past few decades since Faulk, Westbrook and Bush (high praise from me). In his first three seasons, he has averaged about 50 receptions and 450 receiving yards, which enhances his value in (more typical) PPR leagues."
Any data that makes Hill look bad is retained, and that would cast him in a positive light is ignored. Any data that makes Bernard look good is retained, and that would cast him in a negative light is ignored. Stats are honored or not selectively and according to whim. Narrative fit is the only criteria employed. Signs of the true believer. The EXACT SAME data (most of Hill's 2014 rushing yards came in four games, most of Bernard's 2015 rushing AND receiving yards came in four games, Hill had bad games in 2014, Bernard had bad games in 2015) is used to interpret Hill in a negative light, but not Bernard. Another sign of a true believer. Clear differences in Hill between 2014 and 2015 are suppressed to conform to the narrative. True believer.
What value add did Bernard provide in games when he averaged sub-2.0 and sub-3.0 rushing yards against near bottom 10 Rams and bottom 5 49ers rush defenses in the past five weeks (what does your "situational analysis" reveal about those games?). Why did a few bad games by Hill last year make him JAG, but not the few bad games by Bernard this year (yard per carry average-wise)? You keep talking about how different backs could be interpreted differently because of different teams, play calling, blocking, opponents. Hill and Bernard play on the SAME team, have the SAME coaching, the SAME opponents. Bernard did better this year so you arbitrarily and selectively emphasize that with transparent bias. Hill did better last year, so you arbitrarily and selectively deemphasize that with transparent bias. If Hill does good he was lucky, if he does bad, that is what was supposed to happen, he is playing down to his "actual", "real" level. If Bernard does bad, he was unlucky, if he does good, he is playing up to his "actual", "real" level. Discernible, of course, respectively, by mystical eye test goggles, that filter selective and biased information according to the narrative (even by hatchet job standards, this is clumsy and ham handed material).
* You keep bringing up Asiata. He has't had sustained success (like Hill leading the NFL in rushing TDs since 2014). Also, he isn't the only RB in league history with 3 rushing TDs in 3-4 games, so another off the mark comp (in the context of Hill being the only rookie RB ever with four 145+ rushing yard games).
My biggest issues in taking your narrative seriously is your insistence that Hill ran exactly the same in 2014 and 2015 but just got luckier in 2014, which is obviously wrong (also, the bizarre double standard habit of claiming a few bad games reflects poorly on Hill but not Bernard, performing "situation analysis" on Hill's bad games but not Bernard's bad games - for instance, what did it reveal to you about his games under 2 and 3 yards per carry against the Rams and 49ers in the past five weeks?). I realize you're keen on putting over this fabrication to maintain the I told you so myth. Unfortunately, you can't bluff, or posture or trick people into believing something that clearly isn't true (if you can, more power to you, but that would speak more to your salesmanship persistence and tenacity than scouting acumen - that said, I don't think you are fooling too many people here).
Same with repetition, it isn't going to hypnotize people into forgetting that 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. You can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times. 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. Hill in 2015 did not = Hill in 2014.
If you called Gurley a JAG (you didn't say he was, but you also didn't say he wasn't, disturbing in itself, highlights are all that are needed to tell he has immensely more talent than Dion Lewis - anyways, hypothetically, to illustrate the concept), and he chopped off a foot in a lumberjack accident in the off-season, and returned for the next decade, but never recaptured that original form, and you claimed each year, I told ya so, I told ya so, I told ya so, you would be wrong every single year thereafter - due to your initial blunder. The combination of an initial misread of the situation, coupled with an inability or unwillingness to recognize changed circumstances, would cause you to serially conflate future struggles with some sort of fulfillment of and vindication of your "prescience". When in actuality, your reasons and analysis were profoundly flawed in the first place. Just because subsequent UNRELATED circumstances lead to a superficial overlap with your (*COUGH*) predicted (*COUGH*) outcome, doesn't mean there was a causal connection between your flawed reasons and analysis and how things ultimately unfolded.
* We're stuck in a loop, and I have nothing further to add to this particular exchange, so Happy New Year, good luck with the narrative.
Reason doesn't have much to do with it. The fact that you can't tell the difference between Hill in '14 and '15 cripples any possible credibility, imo. As does the contradictory, double standard method (Hill is average due to some bad games, not so for Bernard).
* Thread clean up:
post 2608 - "This guy sux (PPR especially)."
You denied saying Hill was bad, merely that he was average. What do you call people when they are actually bad?
post 2627 - "Won't make a comment on Gurley as i have not analysed his game closely. He could be another highly rated jag. I won't rule it out one way or another, but guys like gio, mccoy, dion lewis have skillsets that translate as almost can't miss if given the opp."
Again, it doesn't require years of painstaking analysis to determine Gurley is a massively better prospect than Dion Lewis. You did say you've seen highlights (not looking up a post # for something that trivial). Pretty much show any Yanamano Rain Forest Indian, Inuit Eskimo or Papua New Guinea head hunter who has never even seen a football game before in their life a one minute highlight clip, and 99.999% will point to Gurley and state the obvious as it roars off the screen - "That guy run good!"
The fact that you have a death grip on such a fringe, outlier, bizarre, .001% of the population hedge (not commenting on Gurley, he could be good, could be a JAG?), is more alarming than the relatively mundane and pedestrian misread of Hill, which is unlikely to be taken seriously anyways for the above reasons.
post 2640 - "I realize all you guys are bitter. You should be. I hope its therapeutic to type these long diatribes about how your RB would be ranked #1 if this 4 games were spread across an entire season, blah blah and how he is such a 2014 superstar (4 games sample size of production vs horrible defense). I just hope those that are not Hill backers can see the light for next season when I point this out again at the end of 2016 and also tell you I am too lazy to find it again."
It wasn't just four games, Hill was #1 in rushing the last nine weeks of the season, and while he is the only rookie RB in league history with four games of 145+ rushing yards, he also had games of 100 and 87 yards rushing in that same span, so the four record setting games were far from the only good games he had that season. Diminishing that accomplishment is what you would call hyperbole (I'd call a fumbling hatchet job). The flip side of this is overlooked, albeit consonant with the shtick to date, that his stats could have been even better if he had started more than a half season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You realize he is listed at 235+ lbs., right? And guys like that don't usually run sub-4.3 unless they are Bo Jackson. Not sure what you are looking for that would constitute special. He beat a CB (#21 Lardarius Webb) listed at 182 lbs. to the corner/stripe that should have had the angle, outrunning a defender he outweighs, if we are counting at home, by half a hundred pounds!
That would be like if a player 290 lbs. was faster than Hill. Another CB (#35 Shareece Wright) listed at 182 lbs. was in position to close, but Hill separated and ran away from him, despite cutting back. Both CBs ran 4.46 at the Combine. A slo mo breakdown starts about the :30 second mark of the highlight clip. There is a nasty cutback at the :32 second mark. It isn't a given that a big man can change direction and glide so smoothly and effortlessly, what you are dismissively scoffing at isn't exactly a physics-friendly stunt. He is than up to full speed in 3-4 strides, again, characteristic of a smaller player, which is what enables him to run away from two defenders he outweighs by 50 lbs.LOL. If he had run more like this in 2015 (and like he did in 2014), I'm sure you would have found he would have gotten a lot "luckier" this year.
The true believer vision and goggles prevent you from seeing anything but what conforms to your bias that he is ordinary. This has degenerated to non-analysis. It is rigidly mantra-like tautology repetition, he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you. Nasty cutbacks and outrunning CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (one in the open field who should have had the angle and a trailing one who should have gained on him after the cutback) nearly 40 yards for a score are confirmation to you he is average and "JAG". This is the danger of context-less analysis that completely ignores the pronounced size difference between Hill and the two CBs, misinterpreting his long score as revealing lack of speed.
You are conflating the superficial overlap of an off year by Hill with confirmation of your original misread. Again, you can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times to the contrary. But Hill didn't run as well in 2015 as 2014. Dismissing Hill based on a few poor games but overlooking the EXACT same pattern with Bernard is transparently contradictory, and an incoherent critique impossible to take seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
While I agree with you that this was an excellent blocked play I think Hill deserves credit for cutting to the right at just the right time which avoids a defender reaching out for him (that could have slowed his progress) and cutting to the right behind number 70's block pulling across. He isn't the fastest RB but he was fast enough to finish the play and score the TD. One of the better runs I have seen from HIll this season.
While in some ways I agree with you that Hill is not in the elite tier of RBs I disagree with your premise that he is just a guy. All of the players in the NFL are extremely talented players. Most if not all of the players who make it to the NFL have shined at a lower level of competition. I do not really like the terms JAG or slappy ect. because these terms to me are very close minded and do not give credit to players for what they are good at. What they are good at is usually better than what a free agent could offer, that is why they made a team.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Just because you discount my opinion with hyperbole doesn't make it true. What you are saying ... "that would be as if a 500 pound snowman was dropped 1000ft into a swimming pool and survived to tell the tale!!!" I do appreciate the fiction though.You realize he is listed at 235+ lbs., right? And guys like that don't usually run sub-4.3 unless they are Bo Jackson. Not sure what you are looking for that would constitute special. He beat a CB (#21 Lardarius Webb) listed at 182 lbs. to the corner/stripe that should have had the angle, outrunning a defender he outweighs, if we are counting at home, by half a hundred pounds!
LOL. If he had run more like this in 2015 (and like he did in 2014), I'm sure you would have found he would have gotten a lot "luckier" this year.
The true believer vision and goggles prevent you from seeing anything but what conforms to your bias that he is ordinary. This has degenerated to non-analysis. It is rigidly mantra-like tautology repetition, he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you. Nasty cutbacks and outrunning CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (one in the open field who should have had the angle and a trailing one who should have gained on him after the cutback) nearly 40 yards for a score are confirmation to you he is average and "JAG". This is the danger of context-less analysis that completely ignores the pronounced size difference between Hill and the two CBs, misinterpreting his long score as revealing lack of speed.
You are conflating the superficial overlap of an off year by Hill with confirmation of your original misread. Again, you can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times to the contrary. But Hill didn't run as well in 2015 as 2014. Dismissing Hill based on a few poor games but overlooking the EXACT same pattern with Bernard is transparently contradictory, and an incoherent critique impossible to take seriously.
Yes I already credited him with size as one of his few advantages over the average guy in the league at RB. But this doesn't translate (enough) to breaking tackles and he has no other advantage. This is why his YPC is so low. I can point to numerous runs where he is met with people that weigh less than him that still tackle him. he rarely beats an open field tackle be those that weight more or less than him. When he does do it, its not often enough and he doesn't have the speed to outrun anybody that matters. He also cant catch passes, so basically if the offense doesn't give him that TD he has another bad day with all the other runs (similar to the rest of his season.
Also there are more effective RBs that are more elusive than hill that are heavier. Thomas Rawls comes to mind (220 lbs) has shown the ability to run through tackles and is more elusive and faster. I'd gladly give up 15 pounds for speed/agility in FFB. Also dont want to get into a BMI debate, but ideally a 5'9 guy with lowever center of gravity, better quicks at 220lbs is closer to ideal than a guy that is 235-240 and 6'2 without elusiveness. Numerous heavy backs did better after losing weight, Ricky Williams, Leveon Bell, etc. It translates to more FFB points. There is little advantage aside from being a short yardage specialist to being that big, and certainly gaining 2-3 yards when you need it on 4th down is valuable to the team but wont get you many points in this game, but will in the red zone, so again I credited him with size and short yardage ability as above avg already.
If he was elusive OR faster, OR could catch passes OR more agile OR broke more tackles Or showed better balance ... Size and short yardage isn't enough to put him over being just a JAG imo. Not in this league.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
To put JAG in context for FFB purposes. JAG means while he is incredibly talented to even be in the NFL, he won't put you at an advantage over the competition on average for any given sunday. Of course all these guys are world class athletes or they would not be in the NFL. in context, JAG just means he is no better than any of the other world class athletes at his position in the NFL on avg.
As far as credit on this play, I would expect the average RB to read those blocks and make that cut. that was not a phenomenal cut or anything, and a phenominal cut wasn't required for that play. I guess I can give him a point for having adequate vision, he definitely hasn't shown bad vision.
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it did in 2014, when your "eyeball test" and pseudo-analysis deemed him JAG.Just because you discount my opinion with hyperbole doesn't make it true. What you are saying ... "that would be as if a 500 pound snowman was dropped 1000ft into a swimming pool and survived to tell the tale!!!" I do appreciate the fiction though.You realize he is listed at 235+ lbs., right? And guys like that don't usually run sub-4.3 unless they are Bo Jackson. Not sure what you are looking for that would constitute special. He beat a CB (#21 Lardarius Webb) listed at 182 lbs. to the corner/stripe that should have had the angle, outrunning a defender he outweighs, if we are counting at home, by half a hundred pounds!
LOL. If he had run more like this in 2015 (and like he did in 2014), I'm sure you would have found he would have gotten a lot "luckier" this year.
The true believer vision and goggles prevent you from seeing anything but what conforms to your bias that he is ordinary. This has degenerated to non-analysis. It is rigidly mantra-like tautology repetition, he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you. Nasty cutbacks and outrunning CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (one in the open field who should have had the angle and a trailing one who should have gained on him after the cutback) nearly 40 yards for a score are confirmation to you he is average and "JAG". This is the danger of context-less analysis that completely ignores the pronounced size difference between Hill and the two CBs, misinterpreting his long score as revealing lack of speed.
You are conflating the superficial overlap of an off year by Hill with confirmation of your original misread. Again, you can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times to the contrary. But Hill didn't run as well in 2015 as 2014. Dismissing Hill based on a few poor games but overlooking the EXACT same pattern with Bernard is transparently contradictory, and an incoherent critique impossible to take seriously.
Yes I already credited him with size as one of his few advantages over the average guy in the league at RB. But this doesn't translate (enough) to breaking tackles and he has no other advantage. This is why his YPC is so low. I can point to numerous runs where he is met with people that weigh less than him that still tackle him. he rarely beats an open field tackle be those that weight more or less than him. When he does do it, its not often enough and he doesn't have the speed to outrun anybody that matters. He also cant catch passes, so basically if the offense doesn't give him that TD he has another bad day with all the other runs (similar to the rest of his season.
Also there are more effective RBs that are more elusive than hill that are heavier. Thomas Rawls comes to mind (220 lbs) has shown the ability to run through tackles and is more elusive and faster. I'd gladly give up 15 pounds for speed/agility in FFB. Also dont want to get into a BMI debate, but ideally a 5'9 guy with lowever center of gravity, better quicks at 220lbs is closer to ideal than a guy that is 235-240 and 6'2 without elusiveness. Numerous heavy backs did better after losing weight, Ricky Williams, Leveon Bell, etc. It translates to more FFB points. There is little advantage aside from being a short yardage specialist to being that big, and certainly gaining 2-3 yards when you need it on 4th down is valuable to the team but wont get you many points in this game, but will in the red zone, so again I credited him with size and short yardage ability as above avg already.
If he was elusive OR faster, OR could catch passes OR more agile OR broke more tackles Or showed better balance ... Size and short yardage isn't enough to put him over being just a JAG imo. Not in this league.
He was 5th in yards gained after contact in 2014, according to PFF
So, according to you:
I'm presuming the end of the sentence was meant to be "he wouldn't be JAG."
Since he was top-5 in YAC (ir broke more tackles than all but 4 other RBs), then you must admit he isn't JAG.
Could it be that weeks 15-17 in 2014 happened to be three "Hill games" in a row, in terms of how the game flows? Because after that, in week 18, things went back to what you would expect to be the case in an RBBC like this one.
That aside, I think you give a very fair assessment. Posting consistently solid RB1 numbers without a Gio injury, requires Hill to demonstrate that he is really in-form and special enough runner to relegate Gio to strictly secondary duties, regardless of game flow. I personally think Hill is a decent RB, but not special enough to achieve that lofty outcome, even if I assume he was really out of form in 2015.
Note that this is not a discussion whether Hill is a JAG. It is a discussion whether he is special enough to render Gio unnecessary, which we agree is what you have to believe to expect consistently solid RB1 numbers.
I think its also plausible to consider the quality of Gio as a RB2 and how that affects any RB1 numbers /usage--how many teams have a #2 like Gio?
bostonfred
Footballguy
Roster poison
I don't think that's it. Week 17 was what should have been considered a "Gio game", and Hill still got the majority of the touches (25 vs 10).
IMO this isn't really about Gio. It isn't like he's taken over the job- he's actually getting fewer rushing attempts and receptions per game than he did last year (including if you only count the games after he came back). It's really all about Hill and his general lack of effectiveness. If he had the same ypc as he did last year, that would have given him over 200 more yards rushing, and it's likely he would have scored a couple more TDs as well as commanded even more carries. Now, I'm not sure why he was so much less effective, but one possibility is that the early season fumbles (and/or injury) messed with his head/confidence. He seemed much more tentative, perhaps focusing more on holding onto the football than instinctively running as hard as he did last year. It's also possible that he played over his head last season, who knows. He certainly wasn't a jag last year, regardless of what the other guy keeps babbling about.
A healthy Gio will obviously limit Hill's upside due to his role as the receiving back, but there aren't that many 3 down RBs in the league right now. I definitely think Hill can be a RB 1 even with a healthy Gio, but he has to perform better. Time will tell if he does.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
TL/DR version - You claim I'm distorting things. I claim that is your distorted version or account.mnmplayer said:Just because you discount my opinion with hyperbole doesn't make it true. What you are saying ... "that would be as if a 500 pound snowman was dropped 1000ft into a swimming pool and survived to tell the tale!!!" I do appreciate the fiction though.You realize he is listed at 235+ lbs., right? And guys like that don't usually run sub-4.3 unless they are Bo Jackson. Not sure what you are looking for that would constitute special. He beat a CB (#21 Lardarius Webb) listed at 182 lbs. to the corner/stripe that should have had the angle, outrunning a defender he outweighs, if we are counting at home, by half a hundred pounds!
LOL. If he had run more like this in 2015 (and like he did in 2014), I'm sure you would have found he would have gotten a lot "luckier" this year.
The true believer vision and goggles prevent you from seeing anything but what conforms to your bias that he is ordinary. This has degenerated to non-analysis. It is rigidly mantra-like tautology repetition, he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you. Nasty cutbacks and outrunning CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (one in the open field who should have had the angle and a trailing one who should have gained on him after the cutback) nearly 40 yards for a score are confirmation to you he is average and "JAG". This is the danger of context-less analysis that completely ignores the pronounced size difference between Hill and the two CBs, misinterpreting his long score as revealing lack of speed.
You are conflating the superficial overlap of an off year by Hill with confirmation of your original misread. Again, you can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times to the contrary. But Hill didn't run as well in 2015 as 2014. Dismissing Hill based on a few poor games but overlooking the EXACT same pattern with Bernard is transparently contradictory, and an incoherent critique impossible to take seriously.
Yes I already credited him with size as one of his few advantages over the average guy in the league at RB. But this doesn't translate (enough) to breaking tackles and he has no other advantage. This is why his YPC is so low. I can point to numerous runs where he is met with people that weigh less than him that still tackle him. he rarely beats an open field tackle be those that weight more or less than him. When he does do it, its not often enough and he doesn't have the speed to outrun anybody that matters. He also cant catch passes, so basically if the offense doesn't give him that TD he has another bad day with all the other runs (similar to the rest of his season.
Also there are more effective RBs that are more elusive than hill that are heavier. Thomas Rawls comes to mind (220 lbs) has shown the ability to run through tackles and is more elusive and faster. I'd gladly give up 15 pounds for speed/agility in FFB. Also dont want to get into a BMI debate, but ideally a 5'9 guy with lowever center of gravity, better quicks at 220lbs is closer to ideal than a guy that is 235-240 and 6'2 without elusiveness. Numerous heavy backs did better after losing weight, Ricky Williams, Leveon Bell, etc. It translates to more FFB points. There is little advantage aside from being a short yardage specialist to being that big, and certainly gaining 2-3 yards when you need it on 4th down is valuable to the team but wont get you many points in this game, but will in the red zone, so again I credited him with size and short yardage ability as above avg already.
If he was elusive OR faster, OR could catch passes OR more agile OR broke more tackles Or showed better balance ... Size and short yardage isn't enough to put him over being just a JAG imo. Not in this league.
Gross misrepresentation and distortion doesn't make it true, either. If you had a point worth making, it wouldn't be necessary. Your account of the 38 yard TD is part of the pattern and overly simplistic. Gaping holes, waltzed in, anybody could do it. You left out the part about how he outran two CBs nearly 40 yards to the corner stripe for the score, who both weigh 50+ lbs. less and ran 4.46 at the combine. Webb (21) should have had the angle, Wright (35) had more momentum and was closing yet Hill managed to separate after cutting back across him. On this basis, you concluded he is "slow". To quote you, just saying stuff doesn't make it so. But it's comic gold, Jerry.
You are missing the point, size isn't his only advantage if he has above average speed for his size.
You say Hill's YPC is low, but that only makes sense in a biased, true believer goggles, cherry picked manner. He has only played two years, and had an off year this year. But last year, it was a full yard higher than either of the first two seasons Bernard played. If Bernard does better than Hill this year, that is all that merits noting, and that is how it "really" is, according to you. If Hill does better in 2014 than Bernard did in 2013 or 2014, that isn't how it "really" is, because Hill got "lucky" (and Bernard, by implication, was presumptively "unlucky"). Any evidence or information that would suggest Hill being better than average in general or Bernard specifically is suppressed. That isn't debating in good faith, that is rhetorical posturing. You chalk 2014 up to "four good games", but fail to mention (or acknowledge even after being pointed out to you) that in the final nine games, he also had games of 100 and 85+ yards. I'm sure you would just dismiss them as "lucky" games anyways, in which he had gaping holes, waltzed through and anybody could have done it. Because its "just that easy". Because the narrative demands it.
I'll try to tick off some of the objections in order:
Every big back in the league gets tackled by smaller defenders a lot.
If he didn't have some level of elusiveness (for a big back, not straight up compared with backs like Sayers and Sanders, which is an unfair and unrealistic comparison), it is unlikely that he would have led the NFL in rushing in the last nine regular season games of 2014, while becoming the first rookie RB in league history with four 145+ yard rushing games, on his way to leading the NFL in combined rushing TDs in the past two season. Just sayin, don't make it so.
He did it often enough last year to do several things which you never have, and can't account for (other than grasping at straws with mystical, luck-based non-explanations, and observations so insular that only you can see them).
It is categorically mistaken to suggest Hill "can't catch". In 2014, he had 27 receptions and 200+ yards starting half the games. Whether the coaches decide to use him in that capacity is a separate point, but it isn't true that he "can't catch". This was something that came up prior to 2014, some expressed concern, but he has natural hands. He won't split out as a WR like some receiving backs, but there's nothing wrong with his hands, so this is yet another distortion/misrepresentation.
The way this works, if you are trying to make a point that there are bigger backs that are more elusive (just to remind you, it was, after all, YOUR point), you are supposed to, you know, provide backs that are actually bigger. You than said you'd give up 15 lbs. blah blah blah. Stop right before the blah blah blah part (since nothing after that makes sense anyways). That is called misdirection. Only in this case, you are trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat, and dropped it and it already bolted into the audience. Oops! Rawls isn't bigger than Hill. Period. So that doesn't make the point you started to, before moving the goal line and changing the subject. Heads you win, tails I lose. You mention how Bell lost weight blah blah blah. This again, is misdirection and doesn't make the original point. Some backs get better by losing weight. Some back get worse by losing weight. Some backs get worse by gaining weight. Some backs get better by gaining (or retaining their) weight. Earl Campbell was listed at 245 lbs. Who knows if he would have been even better if he was lighter. We do know he was pretty effective at the weight he played at (albeit a shortened career, but long enough to make the Hall of Fame). Smaller isn't always better. A lot of smaller backs, actually all bigger, smaller, taller, shorter backs PERIOD, never had four 145+ rushing yards games as a rookie. And most never led the NFL in rushing TDs over a two year period. So he has enjoyed a modicum of success at the height/weight he is. More in 2014 than 2015, but the TD stat is inclusive of both seasons.
Hill is elusive enough, fast enough, catches passes well enough, is agile enough (for a big back), breaks enough tackles and showed enough balance, prior to the 2015 off season, to have a YPC average a yard better than Bernard in either 2013 or 2014, break a record (four 145+ rushing yard games for a rookie RB), lead in combined rushing TDs in 2014-2015, finish as a RB2 in most leagues and basically, perform better than a JAG (hatchet job notwithstanding). In this league.
To sum up, the biggest obstacle to your narrative is you inexplicably (I mean for football reasons, I get that the demands of the "I told ya so" narrative dictate and drive it) see no difference between Hill in 2014 and 2015, which is absurd and strains the tensile strength of credulity to the breaking point. That is a big problem for your narrative, actually insurmountable. I don't see you fooling anybody on this point. Also, talking about "situational analysis", for instance how Hill doing poorly against CLE in 2014 "proves" he is a JAG, but sweeping under the rug that Bernard had under 3.0 YPC against the Rams and 2.0 YPC against the 49ers in the past five weeks. Are we supposed to not notice that you are being arbitrary, contradictory and have degenerated into a muddled, incoherent position?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
/exchangeBayhawks said:Except it did in 2014, when your "eyeball test" and pseudo-analysis deemed him JAG.mnmplayer said:Just because you discount my opinion with hyperbole doesn't make it true. What you are saying ... "that would be as if a 500 pound snowman was dropped 1000ft into a swimming pool and survived to tell the tale!!!" I do appreciate the fiction though.You realize he is listed at 235+ lbs., right? And guys like that don't usually run sub-4.3 unless they are Bo Jackson. Not sure what you are looking for that would constitute special. He beat a CB (#21 Lardarius Webb) listed at 182 lbs. to the corner/stripe that should have had the angle, outrunning a defender he outweighs, if we are counting at home, by half a hundred pounds!
LOL. If he had run more like this in 2015 (and like he did in 2014), I'm sure you would have found he would have gotten a lot "luckier" this year.
The true believer vision and goggles prevent you from seeing anything but what conforms to your bias that he is ordinary. This has degenerated to non-analysis. It is rigidly mantra-like tautology repetition, he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you because he doesn't look good to you. Nasty cutbacks and outrunning CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (one in the open field who should have had the angle and a trailing one who should have gained on him after the cutback) nearly 40 yards for a score are confirmation to you he is average and "JAG". This is the danger of context-less analysis that completely ignores the pronounced size difference between Hill and the two CBs, misinterpreting his long score as revealing lack of speed.
You are conflating the superficial overlap of an off year by Hill with confirmation of your original misread. Again, you can say it a hundred times, you can say it a thousand times to the contrary. But Hill didn't run as well in 2015 as 2014. Dismissing Hill based on a few poor games but overlooking the EXACT same pattern with Bernard is transparently contradictory, and an incoherent critique impossible to take seriously.
Yes I already credited him with size as one of his few advantages over the average guy in the league at RB. But this doesn't translate (enough) to breaking tackles and he has no other advantage. This is why his YPC is so low. I can point to numerous runs where he is met with people that weigh less than him that still tackle him. he rarely beats an open field tackle be those that weight more or less than him. When he does do it, its not often enough and he doesn't have the speed to outrun anybody that matters. He also cant catch passes, so basically if the offense doesn't give him that TD he has another bad day with all the other runs (similar to the rest of his season.
Also there are more effective RBs that are more elusive than hill that are heavier. Thomas Rawls comes to mind (220 lbs) has shown the ability to run through tackles and is more elusive and faster. I'd gladly give up 15 pounds for speed/agility in FFB. Also dont want to get into a BMI debate, but ideally a 5'9 guy with lowever center of gravity, better quicks at 220lbs is closer to ideal than a guy that is 235-240 and 6'2 without elusiveness. Numerous heavy backs did better after losing weight, Ricky Williams, Leveon Bell, etc. It translates to more FFB points. There is little advantage aside from being a short yardage specialist to being that big, and certainly gaining 2-3 yards when you need it on 4th down is valuable to the team but wont get you many points in this game, but will in the red zone, so again I credited him with size and short yardage ability as above avg already.
If he was elusive OR faster, OR could catch passes OR more agile OR broke more tackles Or showed better balance ... Size and short yardage isn't enough to put him over being just a JAG imo. Not in this league.
He was 5th in yards gained after contact in 2014, according to PFF
So, according to you:
I'm presuming the end of the sentence was meant to be "he wouldn't be JAG."
Since he was top-5 in YAC (ir broke more tackles than all but 4 other RBs), then you must admit he isn't JAG.
* His previous stock response was Hill just got lucky in 2014 (maybe Bernard had the unlucky opps in 2013-2014 - thus Hill having the yard better YPC compared to either of those years)?
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
I already addressed Hill's fluky, inflated YPC average (vs bad defenses for a stretch run) which was a small sample size to be sure and this also applies to his YAC. How does he rank today in YAC? Not atrick question as I honestly don't know. Are you saying from what you have seen of him that he returns to 2014 YAC going forward? I asked you both for some tape to show me how he is special and I got more stats from miniscule sample sizes in return. This implies that you cant show me anything.Bayhawks said:
I found this Hill Highlight reel for 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M40Oysdsu_M
The first run shows Hill break an ankle attempted tackle from behind the LOS and gain a massive amount of yards after touched which would help explain/inflate his YAC avg quite a bit. This must have massively upped his yards after contact score, but lets give him credit for it even though it wasn't a clean shot on him. This was a good run, but also displayed his shortcomings like a lack of speed, running into the back of Sanu, and running with the ball low and vulnerable to a fumble. Also he didn't jump cut to spring himself from behind the LOS, he shuffled his feet and already had his hips turned outside to follow his block (#77). So that is about the best run I have seen out of him. The next highlight is a 2 yard run for a TD. uhh ok. Then vs CLE/NO had some nice runs vs suspect D (also increasing his PFF YAC score massively vs suspect D, then vs JAX he had a 3 or 4 yard TD that was nothing special, then two more big cutback runs vs the JAX D which over-pursued in both cases badly (which is part of why they are bad defenses). Sound familiar to what I have been saying? He stat compiled most all of his big runs in 2014 (which had contact behind the LOS for many of the long runs to boost his avg) vs terrible run defensive teams. I already highlighted the 3 minute mark run vs JAX. Then a 1 yard plunge vs IND, one vs ATL, a nice lunge for a 4 yard TD vs TEN, a 2 yard untouched plunge vs Texans capped off with a 3 yard plunge vs CAR ... a heck of a lot of dancing and filler mixed in for only a 4 minute clip. Not impressive to my eye and I believe a JAG could have performed equally well for most of those highlighted runs in the clip. I assume since the maker of this video is a Hill enthusiast he didn't leave out any of Hills most impressive work for 2014, but make sure you let me know if I left anything out.
There is nothing in this video that gives me confidence in Hill producing stud type numbers going forward and this is from his best sample size of work that you keep pointing to, and there is plenty of tape/evidence to indicate he is just a guy "in NFL short hand" a JAG. He could be productive in the right scenario, but so could Tim Hightower, Alfred Morris and Alfred Blue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Sparing the thread some time:
Translation - Hill merely got lucky, has no special characteristics and is JAG.
But if Hill was really so slow and had truly pedestrian speed (even for a "big back"), how did he "gain a massive amount of yards after touched which would help explain/inflate his YAC avg quite a bit." There being 11 defenders and all?
It isn't like he just had one long run all year. Your luck non-explanation doesn't (and can't) account for why he wasn't caught from behind more often if he was as lumbering and ponderous in 2014 as you are trying too hard to put over. Again, it is contradictory and incoherent. I've had deli swiss cheese that wasn't as thin and had less holes in it than your narrative.
TM
* For the record, Hill ran a 4.52 at his LSU pro day (that way, no need to resort to TRUE BELIVER VISION goggles). Everybody can figure out for themselves and come to their own conclusions if a 4.52 is FAST ENOUGH at 235+ lbs. to account for whatever level of success he had in 2014, without need to resort to "luck" accountings that possess zero explanatory value.
Translation - Hill merely got lucky, has no special characteristics and is JAG.
But if Hill was really so slow and had truly pedestrian speed (even for a "big back"), how did he "gain a massive amount of yards after touched which would help explain/inflate his YAC avg quite a bit." There being 11 defenders and all?
It isn't like he just had one long run all year. Your luck non-explanation doesn't (and can't) account for why he wasn't caught from behind more often if he was as lumbering and ponderous in 2014 as you are trying too hard to put over. Again, it is contradictory and incoherent. I've had deli swiss cheese that wasn't as thin and had less holes in it than your narrative.
TM
* For the record, Hill ran a 4.52 at his LSU pro day (that way, no need to resort to TRUE BELIVER VISION goggles). Everybody can figure out for themselves and come to their own conclusions if a 4.52 is FAST ENOUGH at 235+ lbs. to account for whatever level of success he had in 2014, without need to resort to "luck" accountings that possess zero explanatory value.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Crown these studs too:
Alfred Blue: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000398043/Blue-46-yard-run AND http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000379110/Blue-punches-it-in-for-a-1-yard-touchdown
Alfred Morris has propensity to use the same "slow down shuffle" to change direction (uses up a lot of time) http://www.redskins.com/media-gallery/videos/Alfred-Morris-highlights/8c3bef4a-9bb7-4489-b0f9-d9526139f49d
Tim Hightower (who can at least catch passes well): http://www.neworleanssaints.com/media-center/videos/Tim-Hightower-highlights-vs-Jaguars/2f8e801c-e847-4c5a-9eb6-d597fa866af3
Do you also feel these players are studs? Morris had a rookie year that blew Hills out of the water. How's he doing now?
Alfred Blue: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000398043/Blue-46-yard-run AND http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000379110/Blue-punches-it-in-for-a-1-yard-touchdown
Alfred Morris has propensity to use the same "slow down shuffle" to change direction (uses up a lot of time) http://www.redskins.com/media-gallery/videos/Alfred-Morris-highlights/8c3bef4a-9bb7-4489-b0f9-d9526139f49d
Tim Hightower (who can at least catch passes well): http://www.neworleanssaints.com/media-center/videos/Tim-Hightower-highlights-vs-Jaguars/2f8e801c-e847-4c5a-9eb6-d597fa866af3
Do you also feel these players are studs? Morris had a rookie year that blew Hills out of the water. How's he doing now?
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
So what is the short answer of Hill here, is he Doug Martin 2.0, was last year a fluke, was he hurt this year and a great buy low target?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You neglected to mention Morris started 16 games and had 335 carries as a rookie (Hill started 8 games and had 222 carries as a rookie).
Sometimes big backs start good and finish bad. Sometimes big backs start bad and finish good.
Sometimes medium backs start good and finish bad. Sometimes medium backs start bad and finish good.
Sometimes small backs start good and finish bad. Sometimes small backs start bad and finish good.
Sub any other possible trait or attribute (speed, elusiveness, etc.). It is the same.
Arbitrary, random observations don't make a point (has Blue ever had any level of sustained success comparable to Hill?).
Sometimes big backs start good and finish bad. Sometimes big backs start bad and finish good.
Sometimes medium backs start good and finish bad. Sometimes medium backs start bad and finish good.
Sometimes small backs start good and finish bad. Sometimes small backs start bad and finish good.
Sub any other possible trait or attribute (speed, elusiveness, etc.). It is the same.
Arbitrary, random observations don't make a point (has Blue ever had any level of sustained success comparable to Hill?).
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
I said Morris had a more impressive rookie season and I stand by it. If you don't agree tell me why. I omitted a lot of things with that simple statement, but it doesn't make it untrue. I don't feel like writing a 20 page essay when something is so obviously true. Morris is a perfect comp, has a similar style of play with lack of catching ability, a more impressive rookie year (which is your pillar you keep standing on for Hill as his saving grace for a pathetic YPC this season) and has seen the same slide in production year two. You do the math. Thre is nothing in Hill's skillset on tape that makes me think he has anything more than the guys I listed, and considerably less pass catching ability than Hightower who also shredded a poor JAX D looking like the 2nd coming of AD.
Really all you have to stand on is a small sample size of Hills performance vs 4 bad defenses in his rookie season 2014. Is there more or did I boil down your entire nth pages diatribe to one sentence?
Really all you have to stand on is a small sample size of Hills performance vs 4 bad defenses in his rookie season 2014. Is there more or did I boil down your entire nth pages diatribe to one sentence?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You keep saying Hill had four "lucky" games against bad defenses. But in the last nine, he also had 100 and 85+ rushing yard games (that will just get twisted to he got lucky against six bad defenses ). Serial, repetitive misrepresentation, distortion, sloganeering and hatchet jobs aren't reasons. Morris started 16 games and had 50% more carries, he should have done better by some measures, just through sheer volume. He had a worse YPC average, and only had 11 receptions in twice as many starts, Hill had like 250% more receptions with half the starts, so Morris wasn't "better" at some things.
I can boil down your nth page diatribes to one WORD (saying the same thing in different ways over and over and over; while avoiding the same obvious holes over and over and over - Hill didn't run the same in 2015 as 2014, and if Hill having a few bad games makes him a JAG through "situational analysis", why wouldn't Bernard fall by the same verdict? You conveniently left that part out in your summation, must have been an oversight).
Just as smaller backs aren't INTRINSICALLY better than bigger backs, shorter posts aren't inherently better than longer ones. That would be like preferring a Harlequin romance bodice ripper to a Pynchon novel because it is shorter. Or Battlefield Earth to the Hateful Eight (or Seven Samurai) because it is shorter. It's superficial. Not directed at you specifically, but short posts can be facile and vacuous.
Your theory boiled down (zero explanatory value, ultimately all variations on the same predictable theme):
LUCKY
). Serial, repetitive misrepresentation, distortion, sloganeering and hatchet jobs aren't reasons. Morris started 16 games and had 50% more carries, he should have done better by some measures, just through sheer volume. He had a worse YPC average, and only had 11 receptions in twice as many starts, Hill had like 250% more receptions with half the starts, so Morris wasn't "better" at some things.I can boil down your nth page diatribes to one WORD (saying the same thing in different ways over and over and over; while avoiding the same obvious holes over and over and over - Hill didn't run the same in 2015 as 2014, and if Hill having a few bad games makes him a JAG through "situational analysis", why wouldn't Bernard fall by the same verdict? You conveniently left that part out in your summation, must have been an oversight).
Just as smaller backs aren't INTRINSICALLY better than bigger backs, shorter posts aren't inherently better than longer ones. That would be like preferring a Harlequin romance bodice ripper to a Pynchon novel because it is shorter. Or Battlefield Earth to the Hateful Eight (or Seven Samurai) because it is shorter. It's superficial. Not directed at you specifically, but short posts can be facile and vacuous.
Your theory boiled down (zero explanatory value, ultimately all variations on the same predictable theme):
LUCKY
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
In redraft this year he was absolutely poisonous. In dynasty he was too, but he retains some value for future years if he can get an opportunity to be the number one. That probably means gio being hurt again or out of town.
This year, though, you most likely got less value from him than if you'd just started a scrub like Alfred blue all year, because you started your "stud" rb through some bad weeks and he didn't score until you'd finally given up on him. He was the worst kind of player to own.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
In redraft he was, solely because of where he was drafted (rounds 1 or 2) and was thus a poor use of a pick.
In dynasty (which is where you fist brought it up) it's absolutely a silly statement for many reasons. Even if you were forced to start him every week - and most good dynasty owners wouldn't have needed to - he likely didn't kill your team and scored double digit points as often as he failed to do so.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Grasping at straws here. Hill had less carries so a higher YPC is to be expected and is trivial, he had 250% more catches than Morris! WOW! Is this what makes Hill's rookie year more impressive than Morris? I assume this is the best you have to say Morris was less impressive than Hill in their rookie seasons? I don't even have to rebut this do I?
or did he run the same with different results? He looked the same as he did last Sunday as he did in 2014. Is this your theory on Morris as well? Why did he decline? Could it be that the league caught up to his limited skillset and the law of regression to the mean also caught up to his limited skillset?
A few bad games? How about a season's worth? Remember at the point of analysis last year I simply said he didn't show anything special when all you pro-Hill guys were saying how great he was. I didn't call him a JAG until the end of this season having seen him more. There is a difference. Aside from that single run against Denver, I still haven't seen anything from this guy that would make me think he would be something special going forward. I have repeatedly asked you and Bayhawks to show me on tape what I am missing, but the request is repeatedly ignored, instead you give me stats from his 2014 season. I already showed you another guy, Morris that had a better Rookie season than Hill, has a similar skillset, and now is producing at the JAG level debunking your theory that his historical 4 great games vs defenses that Hightower could shred makes his 2015 season somehow meaningless since greats like Barry Sanders didn't do what Hill achieved in their rookie season? You talk about Swiss cheese arguments when the main pillar of your argument is a doughnut sized hole you could drive a truck through (hyperbole alert!).
So I ask again, show me the eye test reason of how he is so special. I have shown you plenty of high YPC runs that show him not being special at all ... runs that Alfred Blue could have ran if given the ball in the same situation with the same blocking, runs that if a person only saw the results in the box score could assume the misguided statements that you make about his skill.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
2696
More double standard double talk. If Hill has less carries than Morris in their respective rookie seasons, his YPC average is trivial and meaningless. If Bernard has a more impressive YPC average relative to Hill in 2015, albeit on fewer carries, that is a highly meaningful distinction worthy of note. It is a recurring theme of the hatchet job. Supposedly Hill having greater than 50% of his production in a handful of 2014 games constituted "proof" that he was a JAG. Yet you ignored and suppressed that the exact same pattern and distribution characterized Bernard's production in 2015 - both rushing AND receiving. If Morris had close to 10 receptions in 16 starts, and Hill had more than 25 receptions in eight starts, the obvious disparity is kind of hard to escape an unbiased attention, unless TRUE BELIEVER VISION TM goggles are clamped down so severely they require surgical detachment from the corneas. You haven't done anything from the beginning but repeat with more variations on a theme than a Bach fugue, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky lucky. Why would you start attempting to formulate a coherent response now?
Less regurgitation has been described in the cabin scene of The Hateful Eight.
Again, you don't seem to be fooling anybody on the second point. If you can't see that Hill ran differently in 2015 compared to 2014, inexplicable on football grounds, than by process of elimination, that leaves the abandonment of any data which fails to serve the purposes of the I told ya so narrative. His limited skill set, including being slow, which you inferred from the fact that he outran two CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (and both ran a 4.46 at their Combine), nearly 40 yards to the corner/stripe, the one in the open field should have had the angle and the one trailing had more initial momentum as Hill had to redirect in cutting across him, yet he still separated - THAT limited skill set? More predictably heavy handed "nothing but-ness" reductionism. If it doesn't fit, you must omit.
Like a dark, powerful observational undertow, all stats, information and evidence are pulled under by sheer force of the demand to conform to an "I told ya so" narrative.
Why do players decline? Why did Bernard play worse in 2013 and 2014? More importantly, why do you toss out and deem less important those two seasons in which Bernard suffered in the comparison with Hill in 2014, but focus solely on 2015. Because it is a biased, cherry picked hatchet job. There are many reasons that could account for seasonal variance among players. For one, they aren't cyborgs. Most players don't pump out 5-10 identical seasons in a row. That doesn't mean that a player automatically is "really" revealed by their lowest output season, that would be nonsense. It does for you in the case of Hill because you need it to prop and shore up the increasingly listing "lucky" non-explanation. You ignore it with Bernard because that part of the spectrum can't penetrate the TRUE BELIEVER VISION goggles. There could be a thousand explanations for Hill not approximating the high bar he set as a rookie that don't require the "lucky JAG" monomania. Gil Brandt suggested early that he looked more sluggish and may have gained weight. I (and others) have suggested he didn't run as confidently after being benched for two fumbles near the beginning of the season. I think one difference between 2014 and 2015 (but not certain, so the thread can check me on the point, I stand corrected if not) is that CIN and Hue Jackson ran out of power I formations more last year when Dalton took the snap from behind center and Hill could take the ball with more momentum heading into the LOS. This year there was more examples of running from a shot gun formation, which doesn't seem to play to his strengths as much.
You are losing the plot again with the third point. It was your point, that based on a few games in 2014 such as CLE, in which you claimed to furnish "play-by-play" analysis (i.e. - copy and paste stats accompanied by more hatchet job refrains) that Hill was a JAG. Yet when Bernard has bad games, and has less than 3.0 and 2.0 YPC against lesser run defenses STL and SF in the past five weeks, it is ignored and suppressed. That is contradictory and incoherent, but emblematic of your entire "lucky JAG" non-explanation. How about a few seasons worth in 2013 and 2014 when Bernard suffered in the comparison with Hill as a rookie? I mean, if you aren't being arbitrary? Again, just because you repeat something a hundred or thousand times doesn't mean you are going to hypnotize or trick the thread. Other interpretations have been offered as recently as the long TD on Sunday. But it always yields the same broken record response, he ran through gaping holes, waltzed into the end zone, anybody could have done it, and he is slow, etc. Saying the request has been ignored is more misrepresentation and distortion, and rhetorical posturing. Morris had higher usage and volume as a rookie, by several measures, such as receiving, Hill was better. Not a surprise you would miss that, as you mistakenly said Hill "can't catch", clearly a case of making it up as you go along.
The only thing you have debunked is your own massively distorted carnival fun house mirror observations. A bigger debunk-a bunk than J-Lo's badonkadonk. A self-inflicted epic debunkle on your part.
More double standard double talk. If Hill has less carries than Morris in their respective rookie seasons, his YPC average is trivial and meaningless. If Bernard has a more impressive YPC average relative to Hill in 2015, albeit on fewer carries, that is a highly meaningful distinction worthy of note. It is a recurring theme of the hatchet job. Supposedly Hill having greater than 50% of his production in a handful of 2014 games constituted "proof" that he was a JAG. Yet you ignored and suppressed that the exact same pattern and distribution characterized Bernard's production in 2015 - both rushing AND receiving. If Morris had close to 10 receptions in 16 starts, and Hill had more than 25 receptions in eight starts, the obvious disparity is kind of hard to escape an unbiased attention, unless TRUE BELIEVER VISION TM goggles are clamped down so severely they require surgical detachment from the corneas. You haven't done anything from the beginning but repeat with more variations on a theme than a Bach fugue, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky lucky. Why would you start attempting to formulate a coherent response now?
Less regurgitation has been described in the cabin scene of The Hateful Eight.
Again, you don't seem to be fooling anybody on the second point. If you can't see that Hill ran differently in 2015 compared to 2014, inexplicable on football grounds, than by process of elimination, that leaves the abandonment of any data which fails to serve the purposes of the I told ya so narrative. His limited skill set, including being slow, which you inferred from the fact that he outran two CBs he outweighs by 50 lbs. each (and both ran a 4.46 at their Combine), nearly 40 yards to the corner/stripe, the one in the open field should have had the angle and the one trailing had more initial momentum as Hill had to redirect in cutting across him, yet he still separated - THAT limited skill set? More predictably heavy handed "nothing but-ness" reductionism. If it doesn't fit, you must omit.
Like a dark, powerful observational undertow, all stats, information and evidence are pulled under by sheer force of the demand to conform to an "I told ya so" narrative.
Why do players decline? Why did Bernard play worse in 2013 and 2014? More importantly, why do you toss out and deem less important those two seasons in which Bernard suffered in the comparison with Hill in 2014, but focus solely on 2015. Because it is a biased, cherry picked hatchet job. There are many reasons that could account for seasonal variance among players. For one, they aren't cyborgs. Most players don't pump out 5-10 identical seasons in a row. That doesn't mean that a player automatically is "really" revealed by their lowest output season, that would be nonsense. It does for you in the case of Hill because you need it to prop and shore up the increasingly listing "lucky" non-explanation. You ignore it with Bernard because that part of the spectrum can't penetrate the TRUE BELIEVER VISION goggles. There could be a thousand explanations for Hill not approximating the high bar he set as a rookie that don't require the "lucky JAG" monomania. Gil Brandt suggested early that he looked more sluggish and may have gained weight. I (and others) have suggested he didn't run as confidently after being benched for two fumbles near the beginning of the season. I think one difference between 2014 and 2015 (but not certain, so the thread can check me on the point, I stand corrected if not) is that CIN and Hue Jackson ran out of power I formations more last year when Dalton took the snap from behind center and Hill could take the ball with more momentum heading into the LOS. This year there was more examples of running from a shot gun formation, which doesn't seem to play to his strengths as much.
You are losing the plot again with the third point. It was your point, that based on a few games in 2014 such as CLE, in which you claimed to furnish "play-by-play" analysis (i.e. - copy and paste stats accompanied by more hatchet job refrains) that Hill was a JAG. Yet when Bernard has bad games, and has less than 3.0 and 2.0 YPC against lesser run defenses STL and SF in the past five weeks, it is ignored and suppressed. That is contradictory and incoherent, but emblematic of your entire "lucky JAG" non-explanation. How about a few seasons worth in 2013 and 2014 when Bernard suffered in the comparison with Hill as a rookie? I mean, if you aren't being arbitrary? Again, just because you repeat something a hundred or thousand times doesn't mean you are going to hypnotize or trick the thread. Other interpretations have been offered as recently as the long TD on Sunday. But it always yields the same broken record response, he ran through gaping holes, waltzed into the end zone, anybody could have done it, and he is slow, etc. Saying the request has been ignored is more misrepresentation and distortion, and rhetorical posturing. Morris had higher usage and volume as a rookie, by several measures, such as receiving, Hill was better. Not a surprise you would miss that, as you mistakenly said Hill "can't catch", clearly a case of making it up as you go along.
The only thing you have debunked is your own massively distorted carnival fun house mirror observations. A bigger debunk-a bunk than J-Lo's badonkadonk. A self-inflicted epic debunkle on your part.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Thread has become unreadable.
Summary:
Freds comment about roster poison is kind of funny. There is even a bit of truth to that.
I never thought of a JAG being a player who performs below replacement level in FF. If that is the defenition of a JAG then about 70% or more of all NFL players are JAGs depending on your FF scoring system, roster and starting requirements.
While in FF it is important to identify how well a player may perform in your specific scoring system, I don't think it is fair to define NFL players based on your league rules that none of these players or coaches are playing by.
Summary:
Freds comment about roster poison is kind of funny. There is even a bit of truth to that.
I never thought of a JAG being a player who performs below replacement level in FF. If that is the defenition of a JAG then about 70% or more of all NFL players are JAGs depending on your FF scoring system, roster and starting requirements.
While in FF it is important to identify how well a player may perform in your specific scoring system, I don't think it is fair to define NFL players based on your league rules that none of these players or coaches are playing by.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Bob McGraw,
As I said earlier in the tread, it would do no good to dig up anything I said earlier because it wont change your opinion of Hill, which is why I didn't waste my time doing it in the first place. I'll leave this thread to you as I am convinced you are enjoying it much more than anyone else. I was just trying to help people avoid roster poison with my comment that Hill is nothing special in spite of his 2014 short stint, not trying to win an argument or debate about the importance of a rookie season. I also provided video to back my claims. You and Bayhawks both roll your eyes at me for my "eye test" and contextual analysis/research, but it does work and can help you pick up elite talent for Mr. Irrelevant prices, before a guy breaks out or is touted by the experts, (More Dion, Dion Lewis) and I stand by it and the video I analyzed on Hill and others. I notice you don't/can't provide any. This was a pre-season post selling Dion to the community when he could be had/drafted for peanuts. Finding gems is much more fun than these tiresome debates over a small sample size of data. Besides, the true diamonds in the rough are found by the "eye test", not past performances of YPC or YAC. Every stat must be taken in context of situation/team/talent to project future returns, and once the data is out there the price goes up and Hill's price was vastly too high for his 2015 situation and skillset. The "eye test" could have helped you avoid this pitfall of thinking he had the talent level to overcome his situation in 2015. I wish you the best of luck with Hill on your team next year. He wont be on any of mine as long as Gio is still there.
Tool,
We won't know for sure as nothing is 100% absolute in this game. The best get it right ~67-72% of the time. We can only use past stat/film performance to predict future performance which every investor knows is the first disclaimer to investing. I feel like I have pointed out the reasons why Hill does not add anything special to the position and his 2015 season backs that call up and I feel another poor season is at hand in the future as long as Gio is there, but there is a small percentage he could do well.
Biabreakable,
JAG is just a guy, which means he is interchangeable with any ole average player, performance wise not giving you an advantage over another warm body who could produce the same in the NFL level. It goes without saying that they are all world class athletes, but are interchangeable with avg NFL RB in this case like Alfred Blue for example. I don't feel that Hill would give me much if anything more added to a run than Alfred Blue would under the same scenario, or Alfred Morris, without splitting hairs.
As I said earlier in the tread, it would do no good to dig up anything I said earlier because it wont change your opinion of Hill, which is why I didn't waste my time doing it in the first place. I'll leave this thread to you as I am convinced you are enjoying it much more than anyone else. I was just trying to help people avoid roster poison with my comment that Hill is nothing special in spite of his 2014 short stint, not trying to win an argument or debate about the importance of a rookie season. I also provided video to back my claims. You and Bayhawks both roll your eyes at me for my "eye test" and contextual analysis/research, but it does work and can help you pick up elite talent for Mr. Irrelevant prices, before a guy breaks out or is touted by the experts, (More Dion, Dion Lewis) and I stand by it and the video I analyzed on Hill and others. I notice you don't/can't provide any. This was a pre-season post selling Dion to the community when he could be had/drafted for peanuts. Finding gems is much more fun than these tiresome debates over a small sample size of data. Besides, the true diamonds in the rough are found by the "eye test", not past performances of YPC or YAC. Every stat must be taken in context of situation/team/talent to project future returns, and once the data is out there the price goes up and Hill's price was vastly too high for his 2015 situation and skillset. The "eye test" could have helped you avoid this pitfall of thinking he had the talent level to overcome his situation in 2015. I wish you the best of luck with Hill on your team next year. He wont be on any of mine as long as Gio is still there.
Tool,
We won't know for sure as nothing is 100% absolute in this game. The best get it right ~67-72% of the time. We can only use past stat/film performance to predict future performance which every investor knows is the first disclaimer to investing. I feel like I have pointed out the reasons why Hill does not add anything special to the position and his 2015 season backs that call up and I feel another poor season is at hand in the future as long as Gio is there, but there is a small percentage he could do well.
Biabreakable,
JAG is just a guy, which means he is interchangeable with any ole average player, performance wise not giving you an advantage over another warm body who could produce the same in the NFL level. It goes without saying that they are all world class athletes, but are interchangeable with avg NFL RB in this case like Alfred Blue for example. I don't feel that Hill would give me much if anything more added to a run than Alfred Blue would under the same scenario, or Alfred Morris, without splitting hairs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not only this, but he was the #6 ranked RB according to Football Outsiders, who literally try to measure performance above replacement level, essentially the very definition of JAG. Hill clearly was not JAG in 2014.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
I hope you're not counting me as one of them. I don't think talent is the issue here at all.
You think it's Gio, correct? How do you account for the fact that he's actually getting less work this year than he did last year?
Talent may not be the issue, but his performance is. Gio isn't the one holding him back this year.
Similar threads
