You are correct, better than I thought .. Baltimore is only one not in the upper half of the league, with 4 of the teams in the top 10 in rush yards per game. That feed the narrative even more that this is a tough match-up for Hill.
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
Catbird
Footballguy
I need two of Hill, Gio and Hightower in a 16 team. Without Dalton, the whole offense could be running in molasses, but I'm hopeful of finding the dis-spirited rushing defense we've seen lately from SF - not the stronger, earlier home numbers. I am thinking CIN will figure they can bash nose to nose with the occasional passing flash and be pretty sure of beating the 9ers. So I think the passing will be way down - which brings Gio's yardage back to about where Hill is. Its not PPR and I'm expecting about 40-50 yards from both, maybe more from Gio, but with Hill more likely to score. I'm leaning Hightower and Hill at the moment. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting that any of then can replace Ingram.
Well I'm down 5 RB's and non playoff teams snagged Brown, Bolden, Fozzy, and even CMike with higher priorities for their toilet bowl (while my opponent got Denard to start over White) so as the league's points champ I'm starting Hightower and Hill down the stretch. Such a fun season.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
I have Forte (my keeper), Hill was my 1st round pick, and C, West as my proposed starting trio this week, but now that Robinson from Jax fell into my lap on the WW this week, I am really torn about who to start between him and Hill. I can see Hill getting touches, but I also can see SF stacking the box and just forcing McCarron to beat them long especially if Eifert is limited or can't go.
I just don't think Hill can be trusted this week if you have other options. At least with Gio you get the receiving chances, but Hill has 11 catches on the year compared to 40 for Gio.
I think all of us Hill owners drafted him with high hopes, but this is a guy who has scored 8 tds all year (3 of them came in one game) and has an average fantasy points total per game (at least in my league) of just over 9 points a game.
I just don't think Hill can be trusted this week if you have other options. At least with Gio you get the receiving chances, but Hill has 11 catches on the year compared to 40 for Gio.
I think all of us Hill owners drafted him with high hopes, but this is a guy who has scored 8 tds all year (3 of them came in one game) and has an average fantasy points total per game (at least in my league) of just over 9 points a game.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
If you thought "he adds nothing" during his breakout last year, then you just don't know football. He's not as good this year because he looks like a different guy than the one who tore up defenses last year--not because he was never very good. Owners are hoping he gets that mojo back.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
The Broncos are the number one run defense in the league only allowing 3.2 ypc for the season.
San Francisco who the Bengals, Hill and Bernard struggled to run against last week without Dalton is the 27th run defense allowing 4.1 ypc (which is average).
The 49ers offense is last in the league in points scored, averaging 14.4 points per game.
Based on how they performed recently without Dalton against the 49ers I would not expect either RB to perform better against Denver. That said it would be hard for them to do worse.
I think the Broncos will score enough to force the Bengals into pass mode and that scenario helps Bernard more than Hill generally.
San Francisco who the Bengals, Hill and Bernard struggled to run against last week without Dalton is the 27th run defense allowing 4.1 ypc (which is average).
The 49ers offense is last in the league in points scored, averaging 14.4 points per game.
Based on how they performed recently without Dalton against the 49ers I would not expect either RB to perform better against Denver. That said it would be hard for them to do worse.
I think the Broncos will score enough to force the Bengals into pass mode and that scenario helps Bernard more than Hill generally.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
I'm not going to look it up but in this thread or the gio thread I had a long discussion with Hill enthusiasts about Gio vs Hill and I provided carry by carry analysis to show Hill was just a JAG last year (and did not add much to the run, cant create on his own, etc.) and its proving right again this year as well. What he did last year was run through big holes during perfect situations. Just sayin'.
Last edited by a moderator:
I drafted him #1 and yes, that didn't work out. But he got 2 TD's last week in 3 quarters while Gio did nothing --
Biabreakable
Footballguy
It is pretty over the top to say that what Hill did last season during a stretch of games was not very good. I recall Bob talking about how rare and exceptional it was and that is a pretty indisputable fact. At the same time it was anomalous in its rarity so very unlikely for the same performance to be repeated. Also digging down into it most of those very good games came against weak opponents such as the Browns and Jaguars. This also coincided with injuries to many of the Bengals skill positions leading to more use of Hill than we have seen with other options healthy and performing.
It seems obviously biased to say that Bernard did nothing in the most recent game when his really poor performance was still better than Hill aside from the 2 TD.
Week 15
G Bernard RB 37 snaps 58% 14 rushing attempts 33 yards 2.4ypc 0TD 4 targets 4 receptions 18 yards 51 total yards.
J Hill RB 27 snaps 42% 19 rushing attempts 31 yards 1.6 ypc 2TD 1 target 0 receptions
Season stats for both RB over 14 games
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill 382 snaps 41.39% 188 rushing attempts 635 yards 10 TD 3.4 ypc 14 targets 11 receptions 62 yards 5.6 ypc 1 TD 697 total yards 11 TD 202 opportunities[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 50 total yards per game and .8 TD per game .529 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard 526 snaps 56.99% 140 rushing attempts 680 rushing yards 2 TD 4.9 ypc 58 targets 44 receptions 431 yards 9.8 ypc 0 TD 1111 total yards 2 TD 198 opportunities [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 79 total yards per game and .14 TD per game .376 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill RB 15 in standard RB 23 in PPR[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard RB 19 in standard RB 15 in PPR [/SIZE]
It seems obviously biased to say that Bernard did nothing in the most recent game when his really poor performance was still better than Hill aside from the 2 TD.
Week 15
G Bernard RB 37 snaps 58% 14 rushing attempts 33 yards 2.4ypc 0TD 4 targets 4 receptions 18 yards 51 total yards.
J Hill RB 27 snaps 42% 19 rushing attempts 31 yards 1.6 ypc 2TD 1 target 0 receptions
Season stats for both RB over 14 games
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill 382 snaps 41.39% 188 rushing attempts 635 yards 10 TD 3.4 ypc 14 targets 11 receptions 62 yards 5.6 ypc 1 TD 697 total yards 11 TD 202 opportunities[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 50 total yards per game and .8 TD per game .529 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard 526 snaps 56.99% 140 rushing attempts 680 rushing yards 2 TD 4.9 ypc 58 targets 44 receptions 431 yards 9.8 ypc 0 TD 1111 total yards 2 TD 198 opportunities [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 79 total yards per game and .14 TD per game .376 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill RB 15 in standard RB 23 in PPR[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard RB 19 in standard RB 15 in PPR [/SIZE]
I agree that Hill is talented and will be fantasy relevant for a number of years to come....However, I don't think I can play him this week. I may regret the decision, but an away game against the #1 rush D with a backup QB seems like a recipe for disaster. If you have other options, I think this is the week to sit him down.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
It was situational. I think its more clear this season. He hasn't even broke 100 yards once this year when he was given the reigns as a starter. This is a guy that gets to face CLE twice SF, OAK and SD. He had fresh legs last year and cleaned up in a good situation. This year he fell on his face even against crapy run D and proved he was a JAG. Gio has a skill set that is game breaking. This guy does not create anything on his own. 3 yards and a cloud even vs bad D. You mention his YPC, but what about this year? Isnt this a better measure of his talent than coming in for the starter halfway through last season in a perfect situation?
A closer look at last season showed he didn't get the reigns until the Jax game because of the Gio inj and his best games were vs JAX/CLE/NO/DEN (the DEN game Peyton was picked 4 times) compiling over half his yards for 2014 in those 4 games. Also he laid an egg vs CLE in 2014. I think even if you don;t agree he is a JAG he took a major step backwards this year. Part of a characteristic of a JAG (like Hightower the past three weeks) is they can perform well in a good situation for a short period of time on fresh legs especially.
I am not ready to anoint Hightower as a stud.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You have nearly 900 posts in 12+ years. Assuming it was posted under this name, it might only take a few minutes to track down what you actually wrote (we can narrow it down to his rookie season). In other words, about the time it took you to write these recent posts. It might be instructive to the thread.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Hill had a disappointing year, no point in sugar coating it. Probably worse than even many detractors expected (several thought he was talented, but were concerned about the presence of Bernard or other Bengals offensive weapons, I'd contend Hill was Hill's biggest issue this year). I strongly disagree he wasn't impressive last season.mnmplayer said:
I'm not sure what it means to suggest that when he looked good last year that isn't what he "really" is, but when he fared poorly this year, that is what he "really" is? Very few backs are consistently awesome, year in and year out. Probably a lot more are consistently bad. But another large category is occupied by RBs that have ups and downs. Like Hill. Like Bernard. Some scouts think they are the best duo in the league (talent-wise), but even they aren't exempt.
My issue with the, he is a hack that got lucky coming into the middle of his rookie season with fresh legs, running through huge holes against bad defenses is at least four-fold.
A) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL that was given an opportunity via an injury to the starter and had "fresh legs".
B) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL with good blocking.
C) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL with the advantage of playing a handful of bad defenses.
D) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL to enjoy a confluence of all those factors.
E) He IS the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL with four games of 145+ rushing yards. It is imo worth noting very few RBs PERIOD in league history (let alone rookies) had as many as five games of 145+ rushing yards, and of the handful or two that have done it, the vast majority were Hall of Famers, with SIGNIFICANTLY more carries (Hill had 222 in 2014, looks like he will have about the same in 2015), that had been in the league as many as 3-4-5 years.
IMO, the onus than falls on the rookie season naysayer, if Hill indeed was just some slappy, why are there exactly zero other rookie RBs to have done this (why not dozens or even hundreds if it is really "just that easy", i.e. - insert any young slappy + fresh legs + good blocking through huge holes + bad defenses = historically unprecedented 4 games X 145+ rushing yards)? Not Jim Brown. Gale Sayers. O.J. Simpson. Eric Dickerson. Earl Campbell. Barry Sanders. Adrian Peterson. BTW, I'm not saying Hill is in their class. Not even close. What I AM saying, is that I find it extremely unlikely he could do something the above more than half dozen Hall of Famers/eventual Hall of Famers proved unable to do, IF HE WAS A SLAPPY, as you are alleging. Even Gurley, who I think virtually EVERYBODY can concur is a rare talent, arguably the best to come down the pike since Peterson (broke the league record for combined rushing yards in his first month of cumulative starts?), had 145+ "only" twice so far in his 2015 rookie season. In fairness, he had 140, 133 and 128 in three other games. But in fairness to Hill, Gurley will end up with 13 starts, more than 50% more compared to Hill's eight starts in 2014. Last year Hill had 222-1,124-9 rushing and 27-215-0 in those eight starts. This year Gurley has 229-1,108-10 rushing and 21-188-0. Those stats are eerily similar, and again, Gurley already has 50% more starts with one game to go.
Lastly, on the Hill compiled half his yards in four games point, in order for that to make sense, it would have to be in some way unusual. We need to look no further than Bernard and Gurley this year.
Bernard - top five games rushing (123, 80, 72, 63 & 62) = 400, or nearly 60% of his 15 game totals. Is it any different receiving? Top THREE games (128, 51, 43) = 222 or nearly 50% of his 15 game totals.
Gurley - top five games rushing (159, 146, 140, 133 & 128) = 706, or nearly 2/3 of his 1,108 rushing yards came in five of his 12 starts.
In other words, basically, if you are employing a consistent thought process that compiling more than 50% of rushing yards in four or so games automatically makes a RB a slappy, than by your same logic and rationale, Gurley and Bernard are slappies (and fall by your same harsh, Draconian verdict). But I don't think that is a point you are trying to make.
So maybe Hill isn't a slappy, either (at least, your logic and rationale hasn't exactly unassailably proven and demonstrated the point). I'm not sure you can make the point you are trying to (you knew he was a slappy last year that merely "got lucky" with fresh legs blowing through huge holes against heinous defenses, and this year "proves" it). But you definitely can't in this way, it fails to make the point you were trying to, a red herring. It wouldn't be better if Hill had many evenly distributed rushing games, if they were low yardage games. It is a fallacy to punish a player for having four or so, huge, explosive games. Those are the kind of games that can help you win on those given weeks. Sometimes the difference between making the playoffs, or winning the playoffs, might be a margin as slim as those same handful of games in question, which you are, imo, misguidedly trying to diminish (we should give the full measure of credit where it is due)?Why didn't Hill do better this year, more like last year? Again, if you want to say he looked exactly the same this year as he did last year, but just wasn't as "lucky", I completely disagree. He flashed noticeably less initial burst and explosiveness to the hole, feet quickness, contact balance and power through the hole and elusiveness/make you miss ability and long speed to run away from defenders in the open field in 2015, compared to his rookie season. Gil Brandt suggested in the first month of the season perhaps he was heavier. Dunno? He definitely ran a lot more sluggishly, with less decisiveness and authority. Which is the real Hill? Is it perhaps somewhere in the middle? One thing, he has proven adept at is scoring TDs (a case where CIN having a strong supporting cast and surrounding talent is a net positive on that factor, not inherently bad). Hill has a combined 19 rushing TDs in 2014-2015 (in 22 starts)*.
A last note about Bernard. I think he is a good back. I haven't seen consistent statistical production to suggest he is great. He has one start this year (that after Hill coughed the ball up twice in a game early this season), after the coaching staff gave his starting job to Hill as a rookie. Bernard missed three games due to injury in 2014. Some say he was still hurt when he returned, but have no explanation for why his yard per carry average was close to identical pre/post-injury. Also, players typically don't lose their starting jobs due to such a short absence, unless they have been outplayed. Be that as it may, the facts that Bernard has one start this year, hasn't rushed for more than 700 yards in his first three seasons with just the pedestrian Law Firm starting in 2013 (he should go over in his last game this year, and did miss three games last year - but that last point is a two edged sword, Bernard doesn't get brownie points for being injured nearly a quarter of the season), and his carries declined from 168 in 2014 to 148 in 2015 could suggest a few things, besides the factor already alluded to that with the receiving weapons healthier this season relative to last year CIN had a more diversified, pass heavy attack.
The coaching staff aren't as confident in Bernard as a pure rusher, and/or in his ability to withstand the rigors and punishment of the RB position at the NFL level over the course of a 16 game season, and therefore seemingly keep him on some form of pitch count to keep him fresh throughout and especially towards the end of the season, for a team that has made the playoffs in back-to-back-to-back seasons, and lately has consistently been in a position to care about such nuances as RBBC season-long carry distribution/ratio optimization (there also seems to be a correlation with Hill's RUSHING usage trending up and Bernard's down as the weather turns colder). 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. After 8 and 7 total TDs in his 2013 rookie and 2014 season, his TDs dipped to 2 in 2015.
Both could have upside in 2016 and beyond, if Bernard has more carries and TDs, and Hill has a higher yard per carry average than he had in his disappointing, underwhelming soph slump campaign.
* Do any RBs have more combined rushing TDs since 2014, Hill may lead the NFL in that stat? There have been some injuries at the position (notably Charles, Lynch and Lacy just in 2015, Peterson suspension-related in 2014), but than maybe Hill gets credit for resilience and durability early in his career?
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on this "logic," you must think Gurley is JAG, then, as well. The situation you described for Hill fits Gurley almost exactly.mnmplayer said:
A closer look at Gurley's season showed he didn't get the reigns until the Ari game. His best games were against GB, Cle, SF, Det, and Ari (the Ari game when Ari turned the ball over 3 times & they had no tape on Gurley-only 7 NFL touches the week prior), compiling over 63% of his yards for 2015 in those 5 games. I think even if you don't agree he is a JAG he took a major step backwards the last part of this year. Part of a characteristic of a JAG is they can perform well in a good situation for a short period of time on fresh legs especially.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
Some great points, but the bottom line is production. I hope you are right about Hill as I own him in one league. I am hoping for a bounce back year like Doug Martin. Anotehr year like 2015 it will be very difficult to defend him to this degree.Hill had a disappointing year, no point in sugar coating it. Probably worse than even many detractors expected (several thought he was talented, but were concerned about the presence of Bernard or other Bengals offensive weapons, I'd contend Hill was Hill's biggest issue this year). I strongly disagree he wasn't impressive last season.mnmplayer said:
I'm not sure what it means to suggest that when he looked good last year that isn't what he "really" is, but when he fared poorly this year, that is what he "really" is? Very few backs are consistently awesome, year in and year out. Probably a lot more are consistently bad. But another large category is occupied by RBs that have ups and downs. Like Hill. Like Bernard. Some scouts think they are the best duo in the league (talent-wise), but even they aren't exempt.
My issue with the, he is a hack that got lucky coming into the middle of his rookie season with fresh legs, running through huge holes against bad defenses is at least four-fold.
A) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL that was given an opportunity via an injury to the starter and had "fresh legs".
B) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL with good blocking.
C) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL with the advantage of playing a handful of bad defenses.
D) He isn't the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL to enjoy a confluence of all those factors.
E) He IS the only rookie RB in the history of the NFL with four games of 145+ rushing yards. It is imo worth noting very few RBs PERIOD in league history (let alone rookies) had as many as five games of 145+ rushing yards, and of the handful or two that have done it, the vast majority were Hall of Famers, with SIGNIFICANTLY more carries (Hill had 222 in 2014, looks like he will have about the same in 2015), that had been in the league as many as 3-4-5 years.
IMO, the onus than falls on the rookie season naysayer, if Hill indeed was just some slappy, why are there exactly zero other rookie RBs to have done this (why not dozens or even hundreds if it is really "just that easy", i.e. - insert any young slappy + fresh legs + good blocking through huge holes + bad defenses = historically unprecedented 4 games X 145+ rushing yards)? Not Jim Brown. Gale Sayers. O.J. Simpson. Eric Dickerson. Earl Campbell. Barry Sanders. Adrian Peterson. BTW, I'm not saying Hill is in their class. Not even close. What I AM saying, is that I find it extremely unlikely he could do something the above more than half dozen Hall of Famers/eventual Hall of Famers proved unable to do, IF HE WAS A SLAPPY, as you are alleging. Even Gurley, who I think virtually EVERYBODY can concur is a rare talent, arguably the best to come down the pike since Peterson (broke the league record for combined rushing yards in his first month of cumulative starts?), had 145+ "only" twice so far in his 2015 rookie season. In fairness, he had 140, 133 and 128 in three other games. But in fairness to Hill, Gurley will end up with 13 starts, more than 50% more compared to Hill's eight starts in 2014. Last year Hill had 222-1,124-9 rushing and 27-215-0 in those eight starts. This year Gurley has 229-1,108-10 rushing and 21-188-0. Those stats are eerily similar, and again, Gurley already has 50% more starts with one game to go.
Lastly, on the Hill compiled half his yards in four games point, in order for that to make sense, it would have to be in some way unusual. We need to look no further than Bernard and Gurley this year.
Bernard - top five games rushing (123, 80, 72, 63 & 62) = 400, or nearly 60% of his 15 game totals. Is it any different receiving? Top THREE games (128, 51, 43) = 222 or nearly 50% of his 15 game totals.
Gurley - top five games rushing (159, 146, 140, 133 & 128) = 706, or nearly 2/3 of his 1,108 rushing yards came in five of his 12 starts.
In other words, basically, if you are employing a consistent thought process that compiling more than 50% of rushing yards in four or so games automatically makes a RB a slappy, than by your same logic and rationale, Gurley and Bernard are slappies (and fall by your same harsh, Draconian verdict). But I don't think that is a point you are trying to make.
Why didn't Hill do better this year, more like last year? Again, if you want to say he looked exactly the same this year as he did last year, but just wasn't as "lucky", I completely disagree. He flashed noticeably less initial burst and explosiveness to the hole, feet quickness, contact balance and power through the hole and elusiveness/make you miss ability and long speed to run away from defenders in the open field in 2015, compared to his rookie season. Gil Brandt suggested in the first month of the season perhaps he was heavier. Dunno? He definitely ran a lot more sluggishly, with less decisiveness and authority. Which is the real Hill? Is it perhaps somewhere in the middle? One thing, he has proven adept at is scoring TDs (a case where CIN having a strong supporting cast and surrounding talent is a net positive on that factor, not inherently bad). Hill has a combined 19 rushing TDs in 2014-2015 (in 22 starts)*.
A last note about Bernard. I think he is a good back. I haven't seen consistent statistical production to suggest he is great. He has one start this year (that after Hill coughed the ball up twice in a game early this season), after the coaching staff gave his starting job to Hill as a rookie. Bernard missed three games due to injury in 2014. Some say he was still hurt when he returned, but have no explanation for why his yard per carry average was close to identical pre/post-injury. Also, players typically don't lose their starting jobs due to such a short absence, unless they have been outplayed. Be that as it may, the facts that Bernard has one start this year, hasn't rushed for more than 700 yards in his first three seasons with just the pedestrian Law Firm starting in 2013 (he should go over in his last game this year, and did miss three games last year - but that last point is a two edged sword, Bernard doesn't get brownie points for being injured nearly a quarter of the season), and his carries declined from 168 in 2014 to 148 in 2015 could suggest a few things, besides the factor already alluded to that with the receiving weapons healthier this season relative to last year CIN had a more diversified, pass heavy attack.
The coaching staff aren't as confident in Bernard as a pure rusher, and/or in his ability to withstand the rigors and punishment of the RB position at the NFL level over the course of a 16 game season, and therefore seemingly keep him on some form of pitch count to keep him fresh throughout and especially towards the end of the season, for a team that has made the playoffs in back-to-back-to-back seasons, and lately has consistently been in a position to care about such nuances as RBBC season-long carry distribution/ratio optimization (there also seems to be a correlation with Hill's RUSHING usage trending up and Bernard's down as the weather turns colder). 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. After 8 and 7 total TDs in his 2013 rookie and 2014 season, his TDs dipped to 2 in 2015.
Both could have upside in 2016 and beyond, if Bernard has more carries and TDs, and Hill has a higher yard per carry average than he had in his disappointing, underwhelming soph slump campaign.
* Do any RBs have more combined rushing TDs since 2014, Hill may lead the NFL in that stat? There have been some injuries at the position (notably Charles, Lynch and Lacy just in 2015, Peterson suspension-related in 2014), but than maybe Hill gets credit for resilience and durability early in his career?
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Bob there are a number of illogical fallacies in your most recent statement.
First of all why do you cling to this arbitrary bench mark of four games with 145 rushing yards per game?
I have seen you use these numbers dangerously wrong to form projections that throw out the poor performances and expect the good performances to be the norm. Which makes absolutely no sense after you make the point of how rare an occurrence it is for any player to do this. If you move your bench mark to something more reasonable then Hill would not stand out at all. This logical fallacy is called lying with statistics. Where one sets up the information to fit their narrative and omits information for that purpose.
Four games with 145 yards rushing it trivia and the definition of an outlier therefore you should not expect Hill or any other RB to repeat such a performance. You should not be using it for projections or comparing Hill to RB who have had HOF careers.
Your next paragraph calling players “slappys” reminds me of Cecil. Not in a good way. Calling any NFL player a slappy or JAG disrespects a lot of players with this statement and the talent level of NFL players is extremely high. None of the NFL players are slappys. There are many talented players who cannot even make an NFL team yet perform very well if given the opportunity. See Chris Johnson or Tim Hightower for recent examples.
You form a strawman argument about mmmplayer’s statement using terms like red herring and so on demonstrating your awareness of logic and reasoning while at the same time not practicing it.
In your statement about Bernard being good but not great. You cite his statistical production as evidence of that yet you completely ignore that he has been mired in a time share and not given the opportunity to be “great” by the categories you establish such as rushing for over 700 yards in a season.
Bernard is currently at 694 rushing yards on 148 rushing attempts. The season isn’t over yet and even with how poorly the offense has performed since Dalton was injured it is very likely that Bernard will cross this threshold in the last game and you will need to move your limiting bench marks again. The point you attempt to make in regards to Bernards yards per carry being similar in season one and two ignores the fact that Bernard currently has 4.7 ypc which is better than his ypc in the previous two seasons and significantly better than Hill this season. Not that things like ypc matter much as long as it is above four which Hill is not.
You then go on to say the coaching staff isn’t confident in Bernards ability as a pure rusher and other things that I do not think are true or provable. You suggest the coaching staff does not think Bernard is durable. Why do you think the coaching staff believes this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
The team and offensive coordinator look committed to a RBBC approach in the division of carries. It has been remarkably consistent in fact, almost clockwork and they stick to this plan regardless of how the main RB are performing. I think that would be a more accurate description of how they have executed their game plan and that does not tell me anything about their perspective of Bernards durability. You are just making that up.
The logical fallacy that bothers me the most is a narrative that has been put forth from the coaching staff that they want to use Hill more in December. Why would this be? Do RB need a certain size or weight to become better suited to performing in cold weather conditions? Does Bernard just turn into a pumpkin after Thanksgiving? It is pure coach speak malarkey but the only thing that matters is what the coaches do. If they want to believe some nonsense like this then sure it affects how the players will be used. I think it was said more as a motivational tool for Hill than anything else. There has been a lot of that this season.
I certainly think Hill is an upgrade from BJGE but after 3 seasons of watching the Bengals with Bernard I don't really think the two RB are in direct competition with each other. They each have a separate job and role in the offense. I think this is according to a plan and it is a plan that is not really affected by how each of the RB are performing.
Saying one starts over the other is a misconception as well. The coaches have pointed this out before. Who starts only means who will be on the field for the first drive. Does not mean anything more than that. Both RB will be used in specific roles and situations. This is player specialization. I don't think Hill and Bernard have the same job or role in the offense at all. They have two specialized roles that become affected by game flow and scripted plans for each game. These scripts are hard to predict because even the teams do not know how things will play out during the course of it. Generally the more the Bengals are playing from behind, the more likely it is that Bernard will be featured, as I have demonstrated before with the advanced splits from PFR.
First of all why do you cling to this arbitrary bench mark of four games with 145 rushing yards per game?
I have seen you use these numbers dangerously wrong to form projections that throw out the poor performances and expect the good performances to be the norm. Which makes absolutely no sense after you make the point of how rare an occurrence it is for any player to do this. If you move your bench mark to something more reasonable then Hill would not stand out at all. This logical fallacy is called lying with statistics. Where one sets up the information to fit their narrative and omits information for that purpose.
Four games with 145 yards rushing it trivia and the definition of an outlier therefore you should not expect Hill or any other RB to repeat such a performance. You should not be using it for projections or comparing Hill to RB who have had HOF careers.
Your next paragraph calling players “slappys” reminds me of Cecil. Not in a good way. Calling any NFL player a slappy or JAG disrespects a lot of players with this statement and the talent level of NFL players is extremely high. None of the NFL players are slappys. There are many talented players who cannot even make an NFL team yet perform very well if given the opportunity. See Chris Johnson or Tim Hightower for recent examples.
You form a strawman argument about mmmplayer’s statement using terms like red herring and so on demonstrating your awareness of logic and reasoning while at the same time not practicing it.
In your statement about Bernard being good but not great. You cite his statistical production as evidence of that yet you completely ignore that he has been mired in a time share and not given the opportunity to be “great” by the categories you establish such as rushing for over 700 yards in a season.
Bernard is currently at 694 rushing yards on 148 rushing attempts. The season isn’t over yet and even with how poorly the offense has performed since Dalton was injured it is very likely that Bernard will cross this threshold in the last game and you will need to move your limiting bench marks again. The point you attempt to make in regards to Bernards yards per carry being similar in season one and two ignores the fact that Bernard currently has 4.7 ypc which is better than his ypc in the previous two seasons and significantly better than Hill this season. Not that things like ypc matter much as long as it is above four which Hill is not.
You then go on to say the coaching staff isn’t confident in Bernards ability as a pure rusher and other things that I do not think are true or provable. You suggest the coaching staff does not think Bernard is durable. Why do you think the coaching staff believes this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
The team and offensive coordinator look committed to a RBBC approach in the division of carries. It has been remarkably consistent in fact, almost clockwork and they stick to this plan regardless of how the main RB are performing. I think that would be a more accurate description of how they have executed their game plan and that does not tell me anything about their perspective of Bernards durability. You are just making that up.
The logical fallacy that bothers me the most is a narrative that has been put forth from the coaching staff that they want to use Hill more in December. Why would this be? Do RB need a certain size or weight to become better suited to performing in cold weather conditions? Does Bernard just turn into a pumpkin after Thanksgiving? It is pure coach speak malarkey but the only thing that matters is what the coaches do. If they want to believe some nonsense like this then sure it affects how the players will be used. I think it was said more as a motivational tool for Hill than anything else. There has been a lot of that this season.
I certainly think Hill is an upgrade from BJGE but after 3 seasons of watching the Bengals with Bernard I don't really think the two RB are in direct competition with each other. They each have a separate job and role in the offense. I think this is according to a plan and it is a plan that is not really affected by how each of the RB are performing.
Saying one starts over the other is a misconception as well. The coaches have pointed this out before. Who starts only means who will be on the field for the first drive. Does not mean anything more than that. Both RB will be used in specific roles and situations. This is player specialization. I don't think Hill and Bernard have the same job or role in the offense at all. They have two specialized roles that become affected by game flow and scripted plans for each game. These scripts are hard to predict because even the teams do not know how things will play out during the course of it. Generally the more the Bengals are playing from behind, the more likely it is that Bernard will be featured, as I have demonstrated before with the advanced splits from PFR.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Matt Asiata also scored 3 tds in games 3 or 4 separate times. Barry, sayers etc. never did this. Jags get lucky. One thing I never mentioned is hill doesnt pass the eye test which is of course subjective. Gio does. 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. Hill doesnt have this. He will need a line and good situation to perform, especially in Ppr which is the most popular format.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Except Gurley doesn't have an entire season of suck following his rookie year with plenty of tape showing his skillet is limited for Ppr scoring, the most popular format, not even preforming against sucky defense vs the run. Gurley has that over Hill.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Again, if Hill is a slappy, and there are hundreds/thousands of slappies in league history, why aren't there dozens or even hundreds of rookie RB slappies that got "lucky" with four or more 140+ rushing yard games (because slappies get lucky).So Hill did better as a rookie in '14 but didn't pass the eye test, so you decided by fiat he got lucky. And Bernard didn't do as well that year but passes the eye test, so I'm guessing you decided he was unlucky?
They played on the same team. They had the same blocking. They played the same opponents. Did Hill just get all the lucky opportunities that year, and Bernard had all the unlucky opportunities?
For the final nine games in 2014, Hill was more productive over a sustained period (#1 in the league in rushing) than any comparable stretch in Bernard's three seasons. Has he been unlucky for three years, relative to Hill?Just to clarify another point, Hill is a slappy because he had most of his 2014 rushing yards in four games, but Bernard isn't a slappy despite getting most of his 2015 rushing yards in four games. Isn't this a double standard? Can you explain why you found an IDENTICAL factor unacceptable for Hill yet acceptable for Bernard?
IMO, it doesn't take years of intensive study to see Gurley has a vastly superior skill set to Bernard (or Lewis, etc.). It is the kind of thing that roars off the screen in seconds. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but for my purposes, that take calls into question any comparative observations about Hill and Bernard, as well. Gurley broke the NFL record for most rushing yards in his first four starts. Maybe he got lucky (because that is what slappies do)?
* Is Asiata the only RB in league history to score 3 TDs on 3-4 separate occasions? If not, he would have a different standing relative to Hill. Also, has Asiata ever led the NFL in rushing TDs for a more sustained period (such as Hill his first two years combined)? Not really analogous.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
But neither did Hill LAST year, when you already decided he was a slappy, for not passing the eye test. Despite having the same great blocking and shared opposing defenses, such as they were, and Hill being far more productive, Hill was lucky and Bernard wasn't (since the eye test suggests he is "really" better, albeit not reflected in the stats). And to recap, the fact that Hill got more than half his yards in four games helps prove he is a slappy, but the exact same circumstance with Bernard in 2015 is meaningless in this context and should be ignored?
If you are going to just keep returning to subjective eye test anyways (which has Dion Lewis with a more "can't miss" skill set than Gurley?), and ignore Hill's superior 2014 production, why not just drop the arbitrarily employed point about the majority of production coming in four games proof that Hill is a slappy but the exact same circumstance inexplicably tolerated with Bernard?
A possibility you may not be considering is you could have been wrong about Hill as a rookie (he didn't put up some historically good numbers due to luck or randomness but due to talent), and because of that misread of the situation, predicted he would underwhelm in 2015. If you are wrong about the first half of two connected points, the second didn't "follow" from the first. Anybody could randomly predict a coin flip 50% of the time (can prognostication be random, too, or just Hill's success as a rookie?). Did you really "know" it was going to be heads or tails? Sometimes RBs have off years and bounce back (as pointed out regarding Martin in 2015). Sometimes it is possible to be "right" for the wrong seasons. If a prediction is made that of course Hill will fare poorly because he lacks talent, and an ACME safe falls on him, negatively impacting his next year performance, it doesn't make sense to say, I told you he was ordinary (I kid).
Maybe something you could expand on - clearly he looked better in 2014, and worse in 2015. I'm not buying that he was "lucky" as a rookie (why wasn't Bernard lucky, too, on the same team?). If he ran this year like he did last year, I'm pretty sure you would have found him to be more "lucky" this year, too. If you can't see the difference between the two, for me, it calls into question everything about what you thought you saw last year, which you claim informed your expectation this year.
If you admit Hill ran better in 2014 than 2015 there could be some common framework of shared perceptions (despite inevitable and expected subjective differences). If you find them indistinguishable, than we aren't even in the same universe, and I see no way to bridge that difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
ETA-this post is basically what Bob Magaw said, but not as well-stated. Should have read his reply first.
Yeah, but that's not what you said.
You said that you had come to this conclusion about Hill BEFORE this season, when their situations were exactly the same. When I could take your comment about Hill (that was purely about last season), and apply it almost word for word to Gurley this year.
Just because you made some crazy prediction that ended up being right (for all the wrong reasons) doesn't mean your logic behind that crazy prediction was correct.
This last offseason, I could have said that based on my study of L Bell, the Pittsburgh Steelers offense, his TD/touch rate, low-ish YPR, high YPC & regression, the BMI of his offensive linemen, the gravitational pull of the tides, the alignment of the planets, and his astrological sign that Bell wouldn't be a top 12 RB. My prediction was right, but it would have been based on crappy logic, just as your pre-season prediction for Hill (even though you can't find this prediction) was based on very poor logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Wasting breath & hd space arguing points about Gurley. Just Hill was my point. Like I said, not gonna waste time looking it up, but I made eye test and situational points about hill last year to reach my conclusion. In the time you wrote you book above you could have found it and joined me in avoiding Hill this year. I stand by it into the future as well. I made no Gurley claims. I haven't seen him play ... just a few higlights.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Instead of using pure statistics to make my claim I used eye test in combination. After determining he was a jag I then had to contend with his production last year and create a theory as to why he was productive last year but wouldn't be going forward. I found the reasons stated above. Another was that he had a more talented rb on his team than himself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
I stayed clear of Hill this year based on being in a time share situation. I have been preaching this for a long while.
People wanted to put Hill in a tier 1 elite class. I think it is tough for most RB's to get to that class because a lot of it ends up being situation orientated.
Hill is an above average RB having a bad year. Plain and simple. It happens.
In fantasy football I only play PPR leagues and If I had to pick between Gio and Hill long term I prefer Gio and his skill set. This is not taking anything away from Hill who can be a battering ram and as we have seen especially in his rookie year some monster performances. But week in and week out I like guys who are more all purpose. If Hill starts to develop and be used more in passing downs and be successful at it then I would start to rethink that.
As of right now in dynasty I would take Gio over Hill.
People wanted to put Hill in a tier 1 elite class. I think it is tough for most RB's to get to that class because a lot of it ends up being situation orientated.
Hill is an above average RB having a bad year. Plain and simple. It happens.
In fantasy football I only play PPR leagues and If I had to pick between Gio and Hill long term I prefer Gio and his skill set. This is not taking anything away from Hill who can be a battering ram and as we have seen especially in his rookie year some monster performances. But week in and week out I like guys who are more all purpose. If Hill starts to develop and be used more in passing downs and be successful at it then I would start to rethink that.
As of right now in dynasty I would take Gio over Hill.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Did Hill look exactly the same to you in 2014 and 2015, and your working theory is he got lucky in the former and unlucky in the last season?Hill getting most of his yards in four games in 2014 was an indicator he is a slappy, but not the exact same scenario for Bernard in 2015, why (isn't that a double standard)? It seems muddled and contradictory, and would be more consistent to abandon that point. When you get right down to it, if Hill and Bernard ran the same way in 2016 as they did in 2014, and Hill happened to finish #1 overall, and Bernard around #20, you could still say Bernard is more talented, and Hill just got lucky again (even though, playing for the same team, they have the same blocking and opposing defenses - maybe Hill just got the lucky opportunities, and Bernard the unlucky opportunities?). You noted a combo of stats and eye test, but since Hill was clearly better in 2014, it seems to amount to ignoring stats if they don't conveniently fit your theory (in science, sometimes called Procrusteanism, from the Greek myth about the inn keeper that had one length bed, and stretched patrons on a rack if they were too short, or hacked off their feet if they were too tall, I assume he didn't get a lot of repeat business
). At some point, if you are seeing things few can (Hill ran no different or better in 2014 but was merely luckier), the observation is so insular it is indistinguishable from mystical insight, and it is unclear what you expect to be done with it? Trust you, despite it violating what virtually everybody else could verify with their own eyes and experience (ie - while SOME luck may have been involved, he indisputably ran with more abandon and violently in 2014, and more tentatively and tippy toed in 2015 - possibly overly concerned with fumbling after being benched for a game?).I'd venture a guess that even Hill detractors are situational-based critiques, and can recognize he ran better in 2014 than 2015, which had a lot more to do with the respective outcomes than luck or lack thereof. If you really can't tell the difference between the two seasons, again, it throws all your observations of last year into question, and the (invisible) prediction could be a case of being right for the wrong reasons (aka, luck or guessing right, like you have a 50% chance of correctly calling tails, but if that is in fact how it unfolds, you probably wouldn't boast about how you "knew" it would be tails).
* Maybe you can share some more hidden, invisible predictions this same time at the end of next year, after it already happened, about stuff you "knew" was going to happen?
** Just to be clear, not doubting the veracity of the prediction, just A) absent the prediction, assigning credit is murky, and B) this stuff is more helpful prior to drafts for the new season, I told ya so-type posts after the season not so much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Now watch Rex Burkhead lead the Bengals in rushing in 2016 
BTW Bob Jeremy Hill does not currently have over 700 rushing either. Despite having 59 more rushing attempts than Gio has.
Happy New Year!
BTW Bob Jeremy Hill does not currently have over 700 rushing either. Despite having 59 more rushing attempts than Gio has.
Happy New Year!
You say you predicted this, but can't find any proof of this prediction.Your "logic" behind this impossible to find prediction can be applied almost verbatim to one of the highest ranked young RBs, and your response is "Hurley doesn't have a sophomore year of poor play to support my [supposed] prediction."
When its noted that you supposedly made this prediction BEFORE Hills 2nd year, your response is "let's not waste time talking about Hurley, I'm only talking about Hill." ie-"Gurley does match, EXACTLY my logic for saying Hill was overrated, but I'd be foolish to say that a/b Gurley, I'd better change the subject."
Good talk-if you ever manage to find those predictions from before this season, I'd live to see them.
I avoided Hill this season and never once came remotely close to drafting him for two big reasons:
1. Gio is reason #1 of course and along that note I play in PPR leagues and we saw last season when Gio returned we saw Hill continue to get a lot of carries but his receptions got sapped.
2. I'm always leery of unproven RB's(which Hill was entering the league) who play sparingly early in the year, are kept fresh, and than pop in second half or later part of the season. Fresh legs at that position is so critical which is why we constantly see backup RB's who get called upon to start do so well, especially later in the season. I usually have reservations of them being able to duplicate that success when they start the next season with legs that are not more fresh than the people trying to tackle them.
But he's not a JAG, he's a good back who could be a true three down back if he ever needed to be, he's just caught in a timeshare for another season at least and a timeshare back who does not catch passes is very unattractive to me for fantasy.
1. Gio is reason #1 of course and along that note I play in PPR leagues and we saw last season when Gio returned we saw Hill continue to get a lot of carries but his receptions got sapped.
2. I'm always leery of unproven RB's(which Hill was entering the league) who play sparingly early in the year, are kept fresh, and than pop in second half or later part of the season. Fresh legs at that position is so critical which is why we constantly see backup RB's who get called upon to start do so well, especially later in the season. I usually have reservations of them being able to duplicate that success when they start the next season with legs that are not more fresh than the people trying to tackle them.
But he's not a JAG, he's a good back who could be a true three down back if he ever needed to be, he's just caught in a timeshare for another season at least and a timeshare back who does not catch passes is very unattractive to me for fantasy.
georg013
Footballguy
I like Jeremy Hill. He passes the eye test so it is true. He was unlucky this season. I said this two seasons ago. Dont waste your time looking this up. Just take my word for it. He is MTJAG. More than just a guy. Again, I used my special eye test to come to this conclusion. I watch tv very well.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
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.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Bayhawks is the same guy that would tell me (if I took the time to find my posts) that bringing up old posts (chest-thumping) is frowned upon here. So why bother? OR maybe that was Ninja boy who said that. Anyways not worth my time as its not going to change your opinion of HIll if I find it and quote it or not. You wont all the sudden say, "Man nice call. I think you know RBs pretty good." If its worth your look it up. It's there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it isn't.
Just checked this entire thread; the closest I can fine is in post 1056. You discredited Hill's game against Jax because he had a 60 yard run that you didn't think he deserved credit for (his o-line opened a hole, and he "only" ran over 1 guy, who he outweighed
). The rest of the posts were basically you saying Gio is still hurt, Cincy's real secretive with their injury info, Hill isn't that good-he's only playing b/c Gio is hurt, etc. That was the only post where you could try to claim that you "provided carry by carry analysis to show Hill was just a JAG last year (and did not add much to the run, cant create on his own, etc.)." You didn't really do that, but that's the closest thing. What's especially interesting is what you said in post 1402 "I am willing to admit I don't know what will happen." That was on 11/21/14. After that, Hill averaged 18 rushes/game, 94 yards/game, 5.2 YPC, & was the #7 FF RB in 2014 and you vanished from the thread until your post last week.So, where was this detailed, carry-by-carry analysis showing Hill was "JAG?" Because it ain't in this thread.
I also checked the Gio threads:
Why not Giovani Bernard at 1.01?
Gio Bernard 2015
Gio Bernard...Dynasty Buy?
No posts by mnmplayer, period.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
So if Hill does better than Bernard in 2016 (like he did in 2014), it will be because he got lucky, and Bernard was unlucky. If Bernard does better, it will be because that is how it was "supposed" to be, according to the nebulous "eye test" - which only you seem to be completely incapable of telling the difference between 2014 and 2015 RUNNING-WISE, and thus have no recourse to explaining Hill's clearly evident superior 2014 production except by falling back on mystical luck and lack thereof.Also, it is bad that the bulk of Hill's production came in four games that season, making him a lucky slappy, but not bad that the exact same distribution and pattern held for Bernard the following season, he is, alas, an unfortunately unlucky non-slappy. That seems to be the gist.
But I get it, you have your story, and are sticking to it. You can't admit what everybody else saw, that Hill ran better in 2014 and worse in 2015, because that would undermine the I told you so narrative's overarching theme (You "knew" he was merely a lucky slappy in 2014 despite being #1 in rushing the final nine games of the season, and this year is representative of his "actual" ability and what he "really" is). Absent (mystical, nebulous, ineffable) luck. Unfortunately, by digging your heels in on such an obviously counterintuitive point (denying Hill ran better in '14, worse in '15), defying and flying in the face of everybody's shared experience, the "legacy" of the retroactive, virtual/vapor "prediction" is the opposite of your intention, just an unreliable witness that can't tell the obvious difference between the two seasons, making all related claims suspect and tainted by that inexplicable blind spot.
Hopefully this doesn't elicit a bitter diatribe.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Yeah, no, that makes even less sense than before. You asked why bother bumping the post? But you already did (albeit a retroactive, virtual/vapor "prediction" bump). Why would the latter be OK if the former isn't? Unfortunately laziness pretty much 100% evaporates any credibility (I mean, if there was a shred left after insisting Hill ran the same both years but was merely luckier as a rookie). If it's worth credibility to you, it's worth looking up. Or not, if laziness exceeds desire for credibility. No ticky, no washy!
* My specialty is longer range retroactive predictions about stuff that already happened.1) From the inception of life, multi-cellular organisms are going to catch on.
2) Cro-Magnon man will prevail over Neanderthals.
3) The North will defeat the South in the Civil War.
4) The US will be the first to land a man on the moon.
* Striking out, though, trying to find a bookie that accepts bets on games that have already taken place. "I really liked the Rams over the Seahawks in week 16, can we retroactively place that bet on the honor system, I was too lazy to call the bet in, you know, before the game was over?"
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Take items out of context much? I stand by what I said. Hill added nothing to those runs and the reason I said I had no idea what would happen was based upon not knowing gio's health status, not based upon hills talent level vs gio's. It's assumed at that point that if Gio was healthy hill would lose value. Hill only has startable value if Gio is not playing. Sound familiar to 2015? It's the same for 2014 when I posted. Hill only has any chance at value when he gets all the carries as a stat acumulater vs bad defense when Gio is out of the picture, you know the more talented back on the team.Except it isn't.
So, where was this detailed, carry-by-carry analysis showing Hill was "JAG?" Because it ain't in this thread.
I also checked the Gio threads:
Why not Giovani Bernard at 1.01?
Gio Bernard 2015
Gio Bernard...Dynasty Buy?
No posts by mnmplayer, period.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Of course Bayhawks omits the post most telling of hills "meh" value with play by play analysis, but brings up my out of context posts saying I don't know what will happen. Lol he could do nothing vs Cleveland just about the best match up a guy could have wished for last year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
re: post 2646
"Hill only has any chance at value when he gets all the carries as a stat acumulater vs bad defense when Gio is out of the picture, you know the more talented back on the team."
Hill was the NFLs #1 rusher in the last nine weeks of 2015 (of which Bernard played six of those games). You forgot to mention the part about Bernard losing his starting job to Hill during that time. No doubt a simple, honest oversight. Maybe Hill just got lucky the CIN coaching staff gave him more carries because they thought he was more talented and ran more effectively during that span?
The complete and total inability to distinguish between Hill in '14 and '15 isn't credible.
Dinging Hill for getting the bulk of his yards in four games during 2014 but arbitrarily not Bernard in 2015 is pure, unadulterated bias.
* In two of the past five weeks, Bernard was:
10-16-0 rushing (1.6 yards per carry) against the Rams - 5 rushing yards allowed more per game away from being a bottom 10 rush defense.
14-33-0 rushing (2.36 yards per carry) against the 49ers - a bottom 5 rush defense.
By your own bizarre definition and rationale, this would make Bernard JAG (cue more arbitrariness and bias). Maybe they were just his unlucky games?
"Hill only has any chance at value when he gets all the carries as a stat acumulater vs bad defense when Gio is out of the picture, you know the more talented back on the team."
Hill was the NFLs #1 rusher in the last nine weeks of 2015 (of which Bernard played six of those games). You forgot to mention the part about Bernard losing his starting job to Hill during that time. No doubt a simple, honest oversight. Maybe Hill just got lucky the CIN coaching staff gave him more carries because they thought he was more talented and ran more effectively during that span?
The complete and total inability to distinguish between Hill in '14 and '15 isn't credible.
Dinging Hill for getting the bulk of his yards in four games during 2014 but arbitrarily not Bernard in 2015 is pure, unadulterated bias.
* In two of the past five weeks, Bernard was:
10-16-0 rushing (1.6 yards per carry) against the Rams - 5 rushing yards allowed more per game away from being a bottom 10 rush defense.
14-33-0 rushing (2.36 yards per carry) against the 49ers - a bottom 5 rush defense.
By your own bizarre definition and rationale, this would make Bernard JAG (cue more arbitrariness and bias). Maybe they were just his unlucky games?
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
I don't value ypc nearly as much as you do but Gio has better ypc this year. LT had a sub 4.0 ypc his rookie year but talent oozed from him. I look at what value the player adds to a play. For example a player can run for 4 yards and break 5 tackles to get the much like dion lewis does routinely and another meh player like Asiata could run for a 50 yard wide open run. Doesnt mean he is better than the guy that only got 4 yards as aNY avg rb cold have run for 50 yards with zero elusivness. So a play like that then attributed to the rbs ypc stat line is giving him credit for what the team, play calling, blocking did for him. This same player cannot create on his own when the team needs him to make a play. These guys get what the defense gives them. Heck they could have a great season on a great team. Doesn't mean they are above jag level. On the right team Gio jas more potential because he is more skilled, esp in ppr.
And as u can see fromy post above, during the beginning of the game in a situation they needed and gave Hill to,run, on pace for 32 carries he failed wit 8 for 22. Later in the game when it was over in a blowout he got easy runs and brought his ypc to 4.6. Big deal he failed when they needed him aND is no threat oUT of the backfeild in catchup mode. But here you are preaching ypc averages, framing the argument based upon this avg. a game for stat losers. Situational analysis is.more important. In 1st and 10,did he avg 5 ypc? No only on 3rd and 15 he did he do this? What's the point?
Also,framing an argument for Hill over Gio without mentioning receiving stats/skill is disingenuous. Please include those as ppr is the norm.
And as u can see fromy post above, during the beginning of the game in a situation they needed and gave Hill to,run, on pace for 32 carries he failed wit 8 for 22. Later in the game when it was over in a blowout he got easy runs and brought his ypc to 4.6. Big deal he failed when they needed him aND is no threat oUT of the backfeild in catchup mode. But here you are preaching ypc averages, framing the argument based upon this avg. a game for stat losers. Situational analysis is.more important. In 1st and 10,did he avg 5 ypc? No only on 3rd and 15 he did he do this? What's the point?
Also,framing an argument for Hill over Gio without mentioning receiving stats/skill is disingenuous. Please include those as ppr is the norm.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Hill is the third highest RB in TD only leagues.
There are 6 WR 3TE and 3 other RB who have scored as many or more TD than Hill's 11 TD so far. Eifert is one of those players and if he did not score so many perhaps Hill would have had more?
Season stats for both RB over 15 games
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill 420 snaps 42.21% 207 rushing attempts 698 yards 10 TD 3.4 ypc 16 targets 13 receptions 60 yards 4.6 ypc 1 TD 758 total yards 11 TD 223 opportunities[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 50.53 total yards per game and .73 TD per game .531 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard 559 snaps 56.18% 148 rushing attempts 694 rushing yards 2 TD 4.7 ypc 63 targets 48 receptions 460 yards 9.6 ypc 0 TD 1154 total yards 2 TD 211 opportunities[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 76.9 total yards per game and .13 TD per game .377 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill RB 17 in standard RB 24 in PPR[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard RB 19 in standard RB 16 in PPR [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Bernard is 17th in total yards in the NFL Hill is 53rd[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Bernards numbers have taken a hit in the last two weeks without Dalton. Hills have too but he has been performing poorly with Dalton, so it isn't much of a difference.[/SIZE]
There are 6 WR 3TE and 3 other RB who have scored as many or more TD than Hill's 11 TD so far. Eifert is one of those players and if he did not score so many perhaps Hill would have had more?
Season stats for both RB over 15 games
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill 420 snaps 42.21% 207 rushing attempts 698 yards 10 TD 3.4 ypc 16 targets 13 receptions 60 yards 4.6 ypc 1 TD 758 total yards 11 TD 223 opportunities[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 50.53 total yards per game and .73 TD per game .531 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard 559 snaps 56.18% 148 rushing attempts 694 rushing yards 2 TD 4.7 ypc 63 targets 48 receptions 460 yards 9.6 ypc 0 TD 1154 total yards 2 TD 211 opportunities[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Averages 76.9 total yards per game and .13 TD per game .377 opportunities per snap[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Jeremy Hill RB 17 in standard RB 24 in PPR[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Giovani Bernard RB 19 in standard RB 16 in PPR [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Bernard is 17th in total yards in the NFL Hill is 53rd[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Bernards numbers have taken a hit in the last two weeks without Dalton. Hills have too but he has been performing poorly with Dalton, so it isn't much of a difference.[/SIZE]
Brevity is your friend, Bob. Especially if you expect anyone to read your posts...which I am guessing is the point of participating in a forum, don't you think?
The usage over the season has been as clear as any RBBC in history. Both are good RBs in their own domains (i.e., Hill getting the tough yards; Gio playing the receiving game). If one got hurt, the other would likely post great numbers again. In the meantime, the upside of each is severely limited by the way Cincy game-plans and uses them both.
I am curious why doesn't the Hill crowd acknowledge this RBBC and the very different roles for each player. I see the Gio fan base grudgingly accept the situation, but somehow the same observations don't register for the Hill crowd.
I understand Hill owners believe his 2015 ypc to be a fluke, but - regardless of that - do you guys expect him to start posting his 2014 numbers again without a Gio injury?
The usage over the season has been as clear as any RBBC in history. Both are good RBs in their own domains (i.e., Hill getting the tough yards; Gio playing the receiving game). If one got hurt, the other would likely post great numbers again. In the meantime, the upside of each is severely limited by the way Cincy game-plans and uses them both.
I am curious why doesn't the Hill crowd acknowledge this RBBC and the very different roles for each player. I see the Gio fan base grudgingly accept the situation, but somehow the same observations don't register for the Hill crowd.
I understand Hill owners believe his 2015 ypc to be a fluke, but - regardless of that - do you guys expect him to start posting his 2014 numbers again without a Gio injury?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
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).
Last edited by a moderator:
TZMarkie
Footballguy
I think part of the Hill owners problem, was that as a whole many of us expected more.
I expected him to put up more consistent numbers, after his great end of season run last year.
I never expected the guy to be a top end RB1 player week in and week out by any means, but I thought that decent low end RB-ish numbers to mid RB2-ish numbers were a fair thing to depend on.
I never expected any "huge games" to be honest.
I seriously thought he could be a "low end RB1" type guy, not what we saw at the end of 2014, but at least someone we could get semi-dependable numbers out of.
Nothing could have been further from the truth.
I drafted Hill and Gio both, which marked the first time I can remember going out of my way to have both in a particular league and I felt a bit of comfort knowing I "should" have decent production one way or the other.... or so I thought.
Hell, lets go a step further and realize that an "all too often typical RB injury" might derail either one, and in that case I had a goldmine.
So lo and behold the one time I actually acquired BOTH solid backs from a backfield, and actually thought an injury would be a plus for me, IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Let's look at it from a weekly Hill owner's standpoint,of course in hindsight.
Here are Hill's numbers, in standard (these numbers were taken right off my leagues scoring, its close to standard with slight performance based bonuses , none of which he reached LOL)
WEEK 1 --- 18.30
WEEK 2 --- .10
WEEK 3 --- 2.10
WEEK 4 --- 24.00
WEEK 5 --- 2.50
WEEK 6 --- 12.90
WEEK 7 BYE
WEEK 8 --- 6.80
WEEK 9 --- 5.20
WEEK 10 --- 2.00
WEEK 11 --- 16.50
WEEK 12 --- 10.00
WEEK 13 --- 15.80
WEEK 14 --- 2.40
WEEK 15 --- 13.10
WEEK 16 --- 6.10
So owners plug him in week 1 and hope for the best, its week one for their consensus early pick.
Decent outing, 2 TDs, not great YPC but we will take it.
Week 2- absolutely dreadful with I believe 2 fumbles. Owners get nervous.
Week 3- 12 carries for 21 yards. Now the rumor mill gets to going, and the beat writers are saying something may be wrong.
So as an owner, you can't keep starting this can you????, its the silent killer in fantasy. I benched him after week 3.
Then of course he goes off in week 4 vs. KC in what didn't look to be a great matchup, he got 3 TD's and also a 2 point conversion.
He only got 9 carries, and the rumor mill kept on going...........is there something wrong with Hill?
I benched him vs Seattle in week 5, not expecting much and his 8 for 13 set off the alarm bells again. (Why??? we knew it was Seattle and not to expect much, but this was worrisome....very little usage and no scoring yet again)
The "is he injured or is it a confidence/fumbling issue" reports were everywhere by now.
After week 5 I had essentially written him off as a bust, and I could only hope he might give me a few more decent games down the stretch when the match up was right.
I fired him up again in week 6 giving him another chance, and he gave me a "meh" 12.90. Roughly what I expected.
Most benched him @PIT, as did I in week 8, but the dream match up was coming.
Week 9 @ home vs. Cleveland. This was the matchup that all of the disappointed owners felt like they could at least get one good game back.
The coaches were continually saying "he is our #1, we are standing behind him", we heard it for weeks now.
Was this going to be a good week?
WRONG - This pretty much solidified him as a bust for the year. 15 for 5.20 points.
The damage was done. If you happened to be in a good spot heading to the playoffs, there was just no way you could roll him out there with any confidence at all. How could you risk any more of these games? You couldn't, not with your playoff hopes on the line.
In that league , I was fortunate enough to actually barely slip into the playoffs, but it was more in spite of him, he certainly had nothing to do with it.
Me, as a Gio owner, I knew what he was going into the season. I didn't expect him to blow up, unless an injury happened to Hill, which never came to be.
In fact, unless you were using Bernard as part of a sloppy RB2-ish committee , then you may not have been able to get many starts out of him at all. (if you owned BOTH backs)
I won't break it down by week, but look at week 2.
Coming off Hill's strong week 1 performance, then you almost certainly didn't start Bernard in front of him, so you missed that one.
I suppose a few people that owned both may have pulled the trigger on him vs. Seattle in week 5, I could see that and he got 10.10.
After week 6, he really only had one more decent game, and that was vs. Arizona in week 11.
This was a season, where if you owned both it was more of a headache than anything.
The bad part about it is, they were both relatively healthy all year long, and the bizarre usage and fumbles made it nothing but a situation that owners would have been far better off to have avoided altogether.
TZM
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't omit anything. I didn't bring up this post, because it's not what you claimed.
You said you did "play by play analysis" of Hill's runs.
Cutting and pasting info from the play-by-by feature on sportsline or espn isn't analysis. The post I cited was the ONLY one you made that attempted to analyze a specific play (and only one).
In the post you (finally) found, you did EXACTLY what I said you did in the post I cited: you tried to discredit any positive stats by focusing on any negative stats you could. That isn't "play-by-play" analysis, and it sure as hell isn't proof that you have any idea what you are talking about.
As for the "out of context" comment, when you take a "big back" who is supposed to "wear down the defense" and you cite his inferior early game stats, while discrediting his good late game stats (which is what big backs are supposed to do), YOU, my friend, are the one who has a problems with context.
Happy New Year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds good on the surface, but why did Hill put up great numbers at the end of 2014 with Gio?Zdravko said:
Sure, he'll be somewhat limited while Gio is playing (in the sense that he isn't likely to get 25+ touches or a ton of receptions per game), but I don't think his lack of production this year is due to the presence of Gio. He just hasn't been nearly as effective as he was last season for one reason or another. If he gets back to 2014 form, he absolutely can be a RB 1 again, even without a Gio injury.
Similar threads
