Jeremy Hill, RB (LVR) (2 Viewers)

[mikmak8902]

I think your points are valid and well thought out. I was just referring to the "6-1 when rushing Hill 15+ times" factoid. I'm just not a fan of that line of reasoning as it doesn't take into consideration the situation of each game. If the Bengals played the bottom 10 rush defenses in the league, beat them all while Hill rushed 25+ times a game in blowouts, and they went 10-0 in those games, what does that really tell us? Does that mean if they run him 25+ times a game against the TOP 10 rush defenses in the league, they will win those? Nope. Every situation is different. Every game has it's own individual game plan. In Week 8, the Benglas ran Hill 10 times and beat the Ravens. What does that tell us? It tells us the Ravens shut down Hill and Cinci was forced to throw the ball. I think that will happen more this coming season with the much harder schedule.

It tells us that was the game Gio got injured (late in the game), and Hill didn't take over as the bell cow until week 9.

ok ... that's it. So the bengals simply need to run Hill 15+ times every game and they go undefeated and win the super bowl. Someone should let them know about this plan. Seems like they could save themselves alot of work.

Yes, that's clearly what I said.

I simply pointed out that you left out a few key pieces of information about that game (including the fact that they shut Gio down), but if you'd like to pretend I said something that I didn't even allude to, knock yourself out.

Sorry ... I was being a little combative there.

The whole point of that post you replied to was that I don't agree with the "when player A carries the ball X amount of times, his team wins games" philosophy. I think it's a useless argument because of EXACTLY what you just pointed out. There is always more information.

And keep in mind, I am not defending the position that Gio is the better back. Hill is clearly the lead back here but I believe schedule and Gio's injury played into him getting some of the carries he received.

My stance on Hill is that he is a top 10-15 RB this year and top 5-10 moving forward in dynasty as long as Gio is there. If Gio is removed from the equation and all other aspects of that offense remain constant, I like hill as a top 5 back.

I simply feel that owners that are looking at Hill's performance from the 2nd half of last season and extrapolating that out over an entire season are setting themselves up for failure as the Bengals schedule will be incredibly tougher this season and if Gio is healthy, that's 3 more games of splits from him to eat into Hill's touches.

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

This will be a healthy Deangelo Williams/ Jstew when both were healthy.

Not something I'm looking to have the headache of. If one gets hurt then will be great situation for last man standing

 

[Bob Magaw]

But if you look at Hill's carries in the first half of the season, when Bernard was the starter, there is at least if not more to be "recouped" there, than what we could stipulate he will lose accounting for the three games Bernard was injured and out of the lineup entirely.

In the first seven games: 4, 15, 7, 2, 8, 4, 10.

If Hill averages 15-17 carries per game, that could be conservatively another 50-60 carries to compensate for the games Bernard missed last year (assuming they both play 16 games).

 

[humpback]

I think your points are valid and well thought out. I was just referring to the "6-1 when rushing Hill 15+ times" factoid. I'm just not a fan of that line of reasoning as it doesn't take into consideration the situation of each game. If the Bengals played the bottom 10 rush defenses in the league, beat them all while Hill rushed 25+ times a game in blowouts, and they went 10-0 in those games, what does that really tell us? Does that mean if they run him 25+ times a game against the TOP 10 rush defenses in the league, they will win those? Nope. Every situation is different. Every game has it's own individual game plan. In Week 8, the Benglas ran Hill 10 times and beat the Ravens. What does that tell us? It tells us the Ravens shut down Hill and Cinci was forced to throw the ball. I think that will happen more this coming season with the much harder schedule.

It tells us that was the game Gio got injured (late in the game), and Hill didn't take over as the bell cow until week 9.

ok ... that's it. So the bengals simply need to run Hill 15+ times every game and they go undefeated and win the super bowl. Someone should let them know about this plan. Seems like they could save themselves alot of work.

Yes, that's clearly what I said.

I simply pointed out that you left out a few key pieces of information about that game (including the fact that they shut Gio down), but if you'd like to pretend I said something that I didn't even allude to, knock yourself out.

Sorry ... I was being a little combative there.

The whole point of that post you replied to was that I don't agree with the "when player A carries the ball X amount of times, his team wins games" philosophy. I think it's a useless argument because of EXACTLY what you just pointed out. There is always more information.

And keep in mind, I am not defending the position that Gio is the better back. Hill is clearly the lead back here but I believe schedule and Gio's injury played into him getting some of the carries he received.

My stance on Hill is that he is a top 10-15 RB this year and top 5-10 moving forward in dynasty as long as Gio is there. If Gio is removed from the equation and all other aspects of that offense remain constant, I like hill as a top 5 back.

I simply feel that owners that are looking at Hill's performance from the 2nd half of last season and extrapolating that out over an entire season are setting themselves up for failure as the Bengals schedule will be incredibly tougher this season and if Gio is healthy, that's 3 more games of splits from him to eat into Hill's touches.

I just disagreed with the conclusion you came to about that game. There will undoubtedly be games this year where Cincy falls behind and Hill doesn't get many opportunities, but that game wasn't a good example of that IMO- Hill only had 10 carries because Gio was still the lead RB at the time (he had 16), not because they shut Hill down and abandoned the run.

I agree about the X number of carries thing, it's always the chicken or the egg. I'm also not extrapolating his 2nd half numbers into a full season in terms of fantasy stats, but I am in terms of his expected workload. He'll likely regress some from the 5.1 ypc, but I think he'll get more than 222 carries as well as more TD opportunities to make up for it. Gio had all 5 of his TDs before Hill took over in week 9 (3 of them were from the 1 yd line), and Dalton had 4 rushing TDs on the season- they had 3 1-yd rushing TDs in that game vs. Baltimore alone, Hill had none of them.

Obviously Gio will limit Hill's upside, but I still think he can put up more points than he did last season. Top 10-12 seems just about right IMO.

 

[humpback]

This will be a healthy Deangelo Williams/ Jstew when both were healthy.

Not something I'm looking to have the headache of. If one gets hurt then will be great situation for last man standing

Why do people keep saying this like it's a bad thing? They were both only completely healthy for two seasons, and Deangelo was the #1 FF RB the first time. The 2nd time wasn't as good, but that's because Cam had 700 rushing yards and 14 TDs. The next closest year (16 games for Stewart, 13 for Williams), they were both lower RB 1's.

Not really a good comp IMO, but I'd gladly take that "headache".

 

[Pwingles]

I have stock in gio and hill.

So i consider myself somewhat unbiased here.

Hill is a stud. Gio is a very good COP back.

It hurts my brain to continuously see the argument that 'he's not bell/ lynch/lacy/AP/ JC/ Shady'.

I assume meaning since his carries split is assumed to be such a number that he isnt considered a bellcow.

Well, congrats, you're right I guess. But most of the NFL is this way, and i think RB 4-6 in dyno and RB 8-10 in re draft is about right at the moment. I also believe his arrow is pointing up, and i also believe Gio being there actually is a benefit. Green, eifert, jones at some point, being back will not detract from his production and will likely help it.

Dont be silly and sleep on this kid. I dont see too many good reasons brought up in this thread to justify being down on him. Mostly just terrible opinions being regurgitated by people who were wrong about him in their rookie drafts and dont wanna swallow that

 

[fruity pebbles]

I have stock in gio and hill.

So i consider myself somewhat unbiased here.

Hill is a stud. Gio is a very good COP back.

It hurts my brain to continuously see the argument that 'he's not bell/ lynch/lacy/AP/ JC/ Shady'.

I assume meaning since his carries split is assumed to be such a number that he isnt considered a bellcow.

Well, congrats, you're right I guess. But most of the NFL is this way, and i think RB 4-6 in dyno and RB 8-10 in re draft is about right at the moment. I also believe his arrow is pointing up, and i also believe Gio being there actually is a benefit. Green, eifert, jones at some point, being back will not detract from his production and will likely help it.

Dont be silly and sleep on this kid. I dont see too many good reasons brought up in this thread to justify being down on him. Mostly just terrible opinions being regurgitated by people who were wrong about him in their rookie drafts and dont wanna swallow that

Im the same, have both. Watching Hill run and watching Gio run is honestly like night and day. Unless the Bengals are purposely trying to lose, theres no reason to believe Hill wont double Gios rush attempts.

 

[Sabertooth]

Let's just see how they look when both are healthy.

 

[jurb26]

Let's just see how they look when both are healthy.

We've seen them both healthy.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yeah at the beginning of last year they were both healthy.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Bernard had more or less the same Y/C average as a rookie and soph.

What you see is what you get.

* That isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am a fan of Bernard.

Bernard's insane run against MIA in his rookie season wins the Sports Science Run of the Year award for 2013 (starts about the 4:30 mark). He is so dangerous in space, that would be great if he could average 4-5 receptions per game. Bernard had a combined 11 receptions in the first two games, and 18 in the last four games. In between, the fifth game against CAR (4 receptions ) was the only time he had more than 2 receptions - part of that no doubt due to injury. The last month was a 4.5 reception per game average. The (unsustainable) first two game pace, for fun, would be 88 receptions. The consensus has him down for closer to 3 receptions per game in 2015, or approx. 50 for the season. He had 56 as a rookie (games of 8, 2 X 6 and 2 X 5).

** I do think there will be an increased chance of Bernard being able to make more spectacular plays like the above throughout the season, if they don't overwork him on between the tackles type-rushes, but get the ball to him in space more often (more receptions - possibly like how Payton may use Spiller in NO this season?). Hill could almost have been purpose built and genetically engineered in the lab to carry a feature RB work load. It makes too much sense to give him the bulk of the carries. He is not just better equipped in terms of physical stature, but just better at the between-the-tackles stuff than Bernard.

*** This may be obvious to most, but could be useful to make a distinction. Between Hill's approx. top 5 dynasty value, and lets say top 10-12 redraft projection or expectation. Hill turns 23 in 2015, so naturally dynasty is skewed heavily towards youth. Having top 10 potential (possible upside?) in redraft at 23 makes him a top 5 dynasty prospect. But some redraft players don't play dynasty and vice verce, so important to keep these different meanings/senses clear in the thread.

 

[georg013]

Yeah at the beginning of last year they were both healthy.

Before the Genie was out of the bottle. Again, why try to jam that thing back down? For as great as Gio is, I am suprised we are even worried about little ol' Hill. Shouldn't Gio be getting the lion's share of the carries? He is a beast and all. Maybe they just think Hill is a really really really nice guy and deserves a little playing time. OR the kid is a monster and forced his way onto the field despite the team already owning a pretty good RB in Gio. I dont know.

 

[Tool]

Yeah at the beginning of last year they were both healthy.

Before the Genie was out of the bottle. Again, why try to jam that thing back down? For as great as Gio is, I am suprised we are even worried about little ol' Hill. Shouldn't Gio be getting the lion's share of the carries? He is a beast and all. Maybe they just think Hill is a really really really nice guy and deserves a little playing time. OR the kid is a monster and forced his way onto the field despite the team already owning a pretty good RB in Gio. I dont know.

Also, rookie RB's often don't see the field as much b/c they're getting up to speed on pass protection.

 

[Sabertooth]

Well how many carries are the bulls in this thread predicting for Hill? 300?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Well how many carries are the bulls in this thread predicting for Hill? 300?

250-260 carries with about 25-30 receptions.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Well how many carries are the bulls in this thread predicting for Hill? 300?

Ive got him projected for 270 carries and 30 receptions, 12 TDs around 1600 total yards.

 

[georg013]

Those sound reasonable.

 

[Sabertooth]

Well how many carries are the bulls in this thread predicting for Hill? 300?

250-260 carries with about 25-30 receptions.

Where do you predict his finals stats at? About a 10% bump? I think that's reasonable. But I think Gio's stats will show a bigger delta than Hill's. Gio was hurt. Now he isn't. That's going to make some impact. Of course that impact doesn't necessarily mean it's worse for Hill either. It could help him as the entire offense stays on the field for more plays by converting third downs better.

 

[Sabertooth]

Who scores more fantasy points this year? Hill or Demarco?

 

[Hoosier16]

Well how many carries are the bulls in this thread predicting for Hill? 300?

Ive got him projected for 270 carries and 30 receptions, 12 TDs around 1600 total yards.

I'd agree and wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets 300. The Bengals are going to run, Lewis generally uses a big back as the lead back, and the lead RB generally gets 70%+ of the RB carries. If the defense returns to 2013 form, there won't be as many blowouts.

 

[georg013]

Hill. I believe Murray breaks down this year after Dallas wore him down.

 

[mikmak8902]

Hill. I believe Murray breaks down this year after Dallas wore him down.

THIS. I've been trying to move murray in one of my dynasty leagues for this reason. The guy hasn't been able to stay healthy at any point until his contract year and then Dallas feeds him the ball 460 times. Now he is going to a team that leads the league in offensive plays per game but they also have a young #1 RB from another team and sproles to share carries. So the likelyhood of him missing games and the competition from sproles and mathews, makes me verrrrrrry leery of going into the season with Murray as my #1.

With the frantic pace of Philly's practices, his fat new contract, and last year's workload, I'm projecting an early training camp hammy for Murray followed by an over/under of 4 regular season games missed.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Well how many carries are the bulls in this thread predicting for Hill? 300?

250-260 carries with about 25-30 receptions.

Where do you predict his finals stats at? About a 10% bump? I think that's reasonable. But I think Gio's stats will show a bigger delta than Hill's. Gio was hurt. Now he isn't. That's going to make some impact. Of course that impact doesn't necessarily mean it's worse for Hill either. It could help him as the entire offense stays on the field for more plays by converting third downs better.

Haven't sat down to do full projections yet, but:

Hill: 1,200 rush yds, 28 rec for 215 yds and 11 total TDs

Bernard: 750 rush yds, 60 rec for 550 yds and 6 total TDs

 

[humpback]

Hill. I believe Murray breaks down this year after Dallas wore him down.

THIS. I've been trying to move murray in one of my dynasty leagues for this reason. The guy hasn't been able to stay healthy at any point until his contract year and then Dallas feeds him the ball 460 times. Now he is going to a team that leads the league in offensive plays per game but they also have a young #1 RB from another team and sproles to share carries. So the likelyhood of him missing games and the competition from sproles and mathews, makes me verrrrrrry leery of going into the season with Murray as my #1.

With the frantic pace of Philly's practices, his fat new contract, and last year's workload, I'm projecting an early training camp hammy for Murray followed by an over/under of 4 regular season games missed.

Nearly 500 touches for Murray counting the post-season, well over 100 more than the next highest RB on the season. Crazy.

 

[Sabertooth]

Has that ever been truly proven though? Is there a good study on high carries and their impact on year N+1? I thought the data was pretty inconculisive.

So let's change the parameters of the question.

Barring injury, who scores more fantasy points, Hill or Murray?

 

[cmv5]

I can admit I was wrong on Giovani versus Hill. I was of the opinion Giovani was a little better between the tackles. He is very dynamic and better suited as a change of pace. The way the Bengals are building their line makes me believe they know what they have in Hill.

The Bengals really got my attention investing two early picks in an already good line. Maybe they will be the next great line.

 

[mikmak8902]

Has that ever been truly proven though? Is there a good study on high carries and their impact on year N+1? I thought the data was pretty inconculisive.

So let's change the parameters of the question.

Barring injury, who scores more fantasy points, Hill or Murray?

Well Hill will be splitting carries with one other back while Murray will have to compete with 2 others for carries.

Then factor in plays per game. Cinci was 5th in the league in 2013 with 69.2 offensive plays per game but then dropped to 17th with 63.4 last season. Philly led the league in offensive plays per game with 70.7 ( a full 2.3 plays more than the 2nd most). So that may serve to offset a bit of the competition for carries factor but not enough in my mind.

Then factor in team rushing play %. Cinci was 5th last year at 47.59% and Philly ran the ball 42.18% of the time.

So I'd say Hill would be given more opportunity.

Cinci gained 4.4 yds per rush attempt as a team last year and Philly was right behind them with 4.2 so run blocking production from both teams seems fairly equal. Murray gained 4.7 ypc with dallas last year who's line paved the way for 4.6 ypc as a team.

With Hill gaining 5.1 ypc last season, I'd have to give him the edge in production on the opportunity given to him.

Cinci has the toughest fantasy schedule for RB's this coming season while Philly comes in directly in the middle of the pack at 16. However, Philly has the toughest fantasy schedule for RB's for the time slotted for most fantasy playoffs ... weeks 14-16. Cinci isn't much better at 4th toughest.

So fantasy schedule seems to lean a bit in Murray's favor for the regular season but they both have terrible fantasy playoff schedules.

I have to think Hill is the winner here not even counting the inevitable Murray injury.

 

[Tool]

Has that ever been truly proven though? Is there a good study on high carries and their impact on year N+1? I thought the data was pretty inconculisive.

So let's change the parameters of the question.

Barring injury, who scores more fantasy points, Hill or Murray?

i'm pretty sure the data is pretty conclusive that the impact is signficant.

 

[Bob Magaw]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

 

[humpback]

This isn't the best place to put this, but since the search function is fubar:

Murray, Mathews will play sharing game for Eagles

 

[Hankmoody]

Has that ever been truly proven though? Is there a good study on high carries and their impact on year N+1? I thought the data was pretty inconculisive.

Can't source it, but saw an article a couple few years ago on this very topic and it was compelling. I think it was a warning about Foster but not sure if it was after 2010 or 2012. 2012 would make more sense but feels too recent as I think it through.

 

[Hankmoody]

Has that ever been truly proven though? Is there a good study on high carries and their impact on year N+1? I thought the data was pretty inconculisive.

Can't source it, but saw an article a couple few years ago on this very topic and it was compelling. I think it was a warning about Foster but not sure if it was after 2010 or 2012. 2012 would make more sense but feels too recent as I think it through.

Not the same article, but http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasyfootball/story/24422853/offseason-extra-the-year-after-400-plus-touchestells the same story

 

[georg013]

Thanks for the links gentlemen. I don't believe this is about hating Murray as much as it is recognizing the toll he took last year. I think it was evident the Cowboys had no intention of giving him another contract. They worked him like a field mule. The curse of the carries is real, especially for a guy with a storied Carfax.

 

[georg013]

This isn't the best place to put this, but since the search function is fubar:

Murray, Mathews will play sharing game for Eagles

Who isn't sharing these days? Can't smash Hill for it if damn near every team has some sort of timeshare these days. Charles, Lacy, Crowell, Murray, Saints, Lions, the list goes on and on.

 

[mikmak8902]

This isn't the best place to put this, but since the search function is fubar:

Murray, Mathews will play sharing game for Eagles

Who isn't sharing these days? Can't smash Hill for it if damn near every team has some sort of timeshare these days. Charles, Lacy, Crowell, Murray, Saints, Lions, the list goes on and on.

I don't believe he's smashing hill for it. I'm pretty sure the link is in reference to the comparison of Hill to Murray ... and actually supporting the argument to go with Hill over Murray.

 

[georg013]

This isn't the best place to put this, but since the search function is fubar:

Murray, Mathews will play sharing game for Eagles

Who isn't sharing these days? Can't smash Hill for it if damn near every team has some sort of timeshare these days. Charles, Lacy, Crowell, Murray, Saints, Lions, the list goes on and on.

I don't believe he's smashing hill for it. I'm pretty sure the link is in reference to the comparison of Hill to Murray ... and actually supporting the argument to go with Hill over Murray.

My post was in support of his.

 

[Sabertooth]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

 

[Hankmoody]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis.

If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

 

[humpback]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis.

If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

Perhaps Murray can be one of the outliers, but the pattern is as clear as day.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The curse of the carries is real,

No it's not - but that doesn't mean Murray won't get hurt (all RBs can/will) or regress (it's practically a given last year was a career year).

 

[Hoosier16]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis.

If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

Perhaps Murray can be one of the outliers, but the pattern is as clear as day.

The pattern is simply that people that carry the ball a lot have more opportunity to get injured.

 

[Bob Magaw]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Lot more bad ones, though, on a percentage basis. Plenty of land mass on Earth, but still mostly covered in water. A statistician can drown in a river that averages 3 feet deep.

The drops were not like 5%-10%, either, but many 30%-40% or more. There is a clear pattern unless you are trying to hard to not see it. You could focus on just the white bands of a zebra or just the white squares on a chess board and say I see a lot of white, but that is kind of beside the point. The surface is striped, checkered, respectively.

How many Offensive Players of the Year changing teams left the best run blocking unit in the league and went to a team where they were probably going to split more carries with a recently signed free agent RB that is also highly regarded with two rounds higher pedigree, as well as one of the best third down RBs in the league?

 

[Sabertooth]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis.

If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

Ok, let's look at this from a different perspective.

Of the 12 backs since 2005 to rush for 1000+ as rookies, only 2 finished with more rushing yards in their sophomore season. Adrian Peterson (+419) and Chris Johnson (+778)

Only one increased his touchdown production AND his rushing yardage - Chris Johnson. (+778, +5)

9 of the 12 saw a decrease in rushing yards in season two. 8 of the 12 saw a decrease in touchdown production.

6 of the 12 saw a decrease in both rushing yards and rushing touchdowns in their sophomore season.

The average for those players dropped from 1246 as rookies to 1062 as sophomores. Tds dropped from 9 to 6.75

See, stats are fun. Basically if a player has a good season, no matter the mileage or age, he's most likely to regress in season N+1.

 

[humpback]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis. If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

Perhaps Murray can be one of the outliers, but the pattern is as clear as day.

The pattern is simply that people that carry the ball a lot have more opportunity to get injured.

Not worth trying to change your mind, but it's not just injuries we're talking about- Eddie George played every game the season after his 450+ touch year, but his production dropped like a stone. The same thing happened to almost all of the RBs who didn't get hurt the following year.

 

[Bob Magaw]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis.

If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

Ok, let's look at this from a different perspective.

Of the 12 backs since 2005 to rush for 1000+ as rookies, only 2 finished with more rushing yards in their sophomore season. Adrian Peterson (+419) and Chris Johnson (+778)

Only one increased his touchdown production AND his rushing yardage - Chris Johnson. (+778, +5)

9 of the 12 saw a decrease in rushing yards in season two. 8 of the 12 saw a decrease in touchdown production.

6 of the 12 saw a decrease in both rushing yards and rushing touchdowns in their sophomore season.

The average for those players dropped from 1246 as rookies to 1062 as sophomores. Tds dropped from 9 to 6.75

See, stats are fun. Basically if a player has a good season, no matter the mileage or age, he's most likely to regress in season N+1.

Not sure if you are being contrary just to be contrary (devil's advocate), but given the last point, why say an exchange or two ago, Iots of good seasons from the list? It seems like you are arguing against yourself?

The average rookie drop from 1246 to 1062 is not as big as some of the other drops in the vet list above that led to this digression/tangent/sprawl.

RB is notoriously an instinctive position in which rookies can excel at. But the list of runners that had 370 rushes in a season is a different breed of cat. Less likely to populate that list by chance, or a later to be revealed ordinary RB that just happens to have been given the opportunity as a rookie (think Anthony Thomas with CHI). THEIR drop off could be construed as more significant. More to the point, more telling in the context of, and in response to your earlier question.

"Has that ever been truly proven though? Is there a good study on high carries and their impact on year N+1? I thought the data was pretty inconculisive."

I'm guilty of this, too, but this started off as a random comparison with Hill and is turning into a thread hijack (again, not just on you). Why not discuss this in the Murray thread, where it would be more relevant, so we can return to discussing Hill?

 

[Sabertooth]

I find myself questions assumptions all the time.

 

[Hankmoody]

"The curse of 370"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2364369-will-demarco-murray-overcome-the-curse-of-370

Plenty of good seasons on that list. How many changed teams as Offensive Player of the Year?

Out of context, perhaps yes. But it's ironic you mention Offensive Player of the Year, because within context, many of the "good" seasons you mention didn't measure up to expectations. Of the 29 entries, only 9 surpasses 1300 yards and only 13 even got 1200. But these weren't JAG's putting up solid seasons. These were epic, HOF players failing to meet expectations. Emmitt, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell. "Good" season don't cut it for those guys, and "good" won't cut it for where Murray's ADP is likely to be in redrafts. And that's only 1/3 of the entries. 2/3 weren't "good", failing to reach 1200 yards and 14/29 failing to get even 1000 yards. Not exactly a lesser roster either in the lower tier - Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, Bettis, Edgerrin James - guys that were top 5 fantasy picks on a yearly basis.

If you're bound and determined to see what you want to then sure, go with that, but for the rest of us that read what's written, this is significant.

Ok, let's look at this from a different perspective.

Of the 12 backs since 2005 to rush for 1000+ as rookies, only 2 finished with more rushing yards in their sophomore season. Adrian Peterson (+419) and Chris Johnson (+778)

Only one increased his touchdown production AND his rushing yardage - Chris Johnson. (+778, +5)

9 of the 12 saw a decrease in rushing yards in season two. 8 of the 12 saw a decrease in touchdown production.

6 of the 12 saw a decrease in both rushing yards and rushing touchdowns in their sophomore season.

The average for those players dropped from 1246 as rookies to 1062 as sophomores. Tds dropped from 9 to 6.75

See, stats are fun. Basically if a player has a good season, no matter the mileage or age, he's most likely to regress in season N+1.

You didn't ask about good seasons, nor if it was possible to follow it up with another "good" season. You asked about the impact after high-carry seasons. It's right there is front if you. I'll say it again - if you are bound and determined to see it a certain way, have at it.

 

[Sabertooth]

To Hill, I think his stats stay about the same or decrease a little bit.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I find myself questions assumptions all the time.

Understood. I was just thinking it could be a good way to generate alternate directions and pathways in thinking. Probably creative/inventor-types do some variation of that all the time. Didn't mean to imply it is intrinsically bad. It can just be a bit disconcerting when turn on a dime (U-Turn, 180 degree reversal?) positions are tried out in rapid succession in the same thread.

Anyways, thanks for returning the thread to normal programming. I think it is a good and relevant discussion, to the Murray thread, others can feel free to revisit this sidebar and explore it in more detail there, where it would be more appropriate to elaborate on.

 

[mikmak8902]

This isn't the best place to put this, but since the search function is fubar:

Murray, Mathews will play sharing game for Eagles

Who isn't sharing these days? Can't smash Hill for it if damn near every team has some sort of timeshare these days. Charles, Lacy, Crowell, Murray, Saints, Lions, the list goes on and on.

I don't believe he's smashing hill for it. I'm pretty sure the link is in reference to the comparison of Hill to Murray ... and actually supporting the argument to go with Hill over Murray.

My post was in support of his.

Gotcha