Jeremy Hill will be the #1 fantasy RB this year (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

Chris Wesseling off-season scouting report.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000496517/article/jeremy-hill-bengals-offense-better-than-you-think

​

Rookie highlights

You make it sound so easy. Was he the only RB to have holes and play less than stellar defenses in 2014? Based on that rationale, there should be lots of RBs that had four games of 145+ yards. Have other rookie RBs had holes and played less than stellar defenses in the history of the NFL? Based on that rationale, there should be dozens, hundreds of rookie RBs that had four games of 145+ yards. But the reality is refractory and resistant to that kind of analysis, and history stubbornly yields zero comps. Not Dickerson. Not Sanders. Not Peterson. Etc.

It is easier for me to believe your personal constellation of what skills it takes to be successful is overly simplistic, you are underestimating his skills, completely missing others, miscalculating the synergistic effect of skills (you don't need stop-start ability like Barry Sanders when 237 lbs. - you neglected speed, power, balance, etc.), misreading how his skills map onto your checklist, etc. I'll try to elaborate on this with another post. Preliminarily, if we liken identifying a great RB to a national manhunt, it always makes it easier to capture those at large when America's Most Wanted broadcasts a recent, accurate photo that is a good likeness. If the image was a Mr. Potato Head, it would complicate, and probably make impossible, identification (except in the unlikely event the perp looked like Mr. Potato. Head ). RB traits/attributes important and critical to success may be more complex and subtle than just three things.

Anyways, if your working assumption is that last year was completely random and flukey, and that Hill isn't actually very talented but merely got lucky, agree to disagree. It would still put the onus on you to explain why many, many, many ordinary average backs that have come down the pike in league history didn't enjoy similar, random, flukey success. Whereas in actuality, he is singular and unprecedented in some respects.

 

[ATSS_0100]

Buy low? Seems as tho

 

[Zdravko]

Bob is a one-man Hill defense unit!

I don't think Bernard can carry the full load. I am sure Hill will bounce back, but but this has always been a committee and reality is just catching up with the hype. Hill is a very solid RB, just heavily overdrafted for his situation. Now may be a good time for Bernard owners like me to buy Hill.

For the Hill fans: how do you explain the 3.5 ypc (vs. 6.6 for Bernard) and the 1 target (vs 9 for Bernard)? And the quite poor pass-blocking?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Perhaps the outlier nature of the stats you are talking about in regards to Hill last season are not good points of reference for what one should expect of him going forward Bob.

Just a thought.

Edit/add - If I beat Usain Bolt in the 100 m. dash tomorrow, I can assure you it would be an outlier. So would you just completely ignore that and pretend it didn't happen? Even if it was an outlier, would it cause you just a little to think maybe he was a little faster than I realized.

What are you advocating?

Is it a sounder strategy to ignore Hill's rookie year and pretend it didn't happen? Assume it was completely random and flukey, and chalked up to luck. Why haven't more RBs gotten similarly lucky, if he has no special qualities? Certainly many other rookies and RBs period have played poor defenses, benefitted from good blocking and holes, had a starter in front of them become injured, but none have done as well (on the stat I have been emphasizing).

Maybe what is meant is temper expectations? By what formula or mechanism do you accomplish that? Is that somewhat subjective and arbitrary in practice? What percentage of his unprecedented four 145+ yard games should we ignore and pretend didn't happen? Not being flip, this is meant as a serious question, maybe it can lead to a constructive discussion on method? Do we lop off 1-2-3-all 4? How ordinary should we make him, to account for the outlier factor, absent some kind of slide rule or conversion chart?

What is the sense in which outlier is meant. I get that he is the only rookie to ever have four 145+ yard games. That isn't tantamount to me thinking or suggesting he is the greatest RB in NFL history. Similarly, I never stated we should have an expectation, your word, that 145+ yards will be some kind of norm and happen with regularity going forward (he isn't sneaking up on anybody, and may be defended differently). think we have a disconnect there. But I can't completely overlook that he did something that none of the greatest RBs in the history of the league have ever done. When I look at the above vet cohort group that had one more 145+ yard game, a few things roar off the screen. They are pretty much all outstanding backs, they had significantly more carries in those seasons, and in most cases took many more years to do it.

Another sense of outlier. Before today, Bernard had one 100+ yard rushing game in exactly 30 games. He has zero 145+'yard rushing games in two years. If HE were to do it, that would be an outlier. With Hill, he put together a string of four games in a half season that Bernard has been unable to match even once, in his two years. Hill did it in basically half his rookie starts. At what point is it not as much an outlier for HIM to do it four out of eight games, relative to if Bernard were to do it once (in which case I'd agree, that would be more of an outlier).

Lastly (for now), sometimes outliers sputter and fizzle out. If they always did, the simple admonition and exhortation, maybe you should think he isn't as good as you think he is, would be unambiguously good advice. Maybe it could even be good advice, in a playing the percentages sense, of it usually being right. But I prefer to look at things on a case by case basis, to not miss out on a potential opportunity for greatness. Because there are times outliers fulfill their expectations. The trick is in recognizing which is which is which. Just stating, I don't think you should think he is that good (or good posting) isn't in itself a reason. Why should we think he isn't *REALLY* as good as his historically unprecedented numbers in some respects, suggest maybe he is? That might be more instructive to the thread.

Most reasons I've seen are variations of, Bernard (didn't hurt Hill last year, not obvious why it would now), Bernard was hurt (but even when he returned, the split heavily favored Hill), Bernard is too good (his numbers are ordinary in two years, why if he is so special) and Hill had games with bad defenses and good blocking (plenty of backs have had one or both and didn't do as well - why?).

* For myself, the appreciation of and respect for Hill's rookie season didn't come in a vacuum. I would still like him if he never had a 145+ yard game. Corey Dillon was a comp I liked a lot, I see that. He wasn't the biggest, fastest, most elusive, but he did everything really well. That was my expectation, he could have a similar career (Dillon at one time held some form of single game rushing yardage record, or was at least high up on the leader boad?). So in my case, the historically good numbers didn't come as a massive surprise, I already had high expectations for him. That makes it harder to forget what I know about these historical comps. If you weren't impressed, it is perhaps easier for both of you. Some use stats, some scouting, most I suspect some form of combination. For me there was a convergence, if his stats do violence to the impressions and expectations of others ( ), creating a radical cognitive dissonance, I could see why that would be problematic, and they might fade the numbers in favor of what they think their eyes are telling them. It partly strikes me as Procrusteanism to fit the numbers to expectations (confirmation bias?), but I get that it speaks to a subjective preference (not right or wrong) in trusting eyes more than numbers. I can appreciate and understand how it might be equally hard for some to ignore what they think their eyes are telling them (Hill isn't special), in favor of numbers they interpret as flukey.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Bob is a one-man Hill defense unit!

I don't think Bernard can carry the full load. I am sure Hill will bounce back, but but this has always been a committee and reality is just catching up with the hype. Hill is a very solid RB, just heavily overdrafted for his situation. Now may be a good time for Bernard owners like me to buy Hill.

For the Hill fans: how do you explain the 3.5 ypc (vs. 6.6 for Bernard) and the 1 target (vs 9 for Bernard)? And the quite poor pass-blocking?

Don't necessarily agree with everything (Hill wasn't hype last year, and he won't necessarily be over-drafted, let along "heavily" this year, if the split is like it was at the end of last year, AFTER Bernard returned), but good reset button post.

Hill fumbled twice and got benched, so if this an aberration (my thinking), we only have one game that he wasn't benched to go on for him. I'm going to go with small sample size for both for a $1,000, Alex. Last weeks game, while not a barn burner yardage-wise, still yielded 2 TDs, and he finished among the RB leaders, I didn't see the problem. Some have said he will be TD dependent, but I haven't heard a good explanation for why that wasn't the case last year, with or without Bernard, he also had yardage games.

If he gets more carries, it increases the chance he pops some long runs, the long TDs last year (DEN was one, the first actual highlight in the link I provided) upped his average. Did he have a sequence near the goal line last week where it took three short runs to punch it in? If so, that could bring his average down. But in general, it is a good thing if he is getting goal line looks, so I'll take that trade off.

* Bernard is better in space than as an inside runner, imo. Hill is a better inside runner, not as agile in space as Bernard. Things don't always go according to expectation, but a proposed split dating back to last year of carry/touch distribution in which both are involved, and that dovetails with their respective skill sets in the RBBC division of labor, would be for Hill to get 16-18 carries (in the middle about 275ish carries for 16 games), a few odd receptions per game, with Bernard getting 8-12 carries and 4-6 receptions. On the low end for Bernard and high end for Hill, the former might get fewer touches than the latter gets carries, but flip it around, Bernard could definitely get more touches than Hill carries. I think that range is in line with what the end of the year split and distribution was after Bernard returned last year. Hill had some low carry games, but also had some high carry games, even once Bernard returned, but that was close to the AVERAGE for both. Maybe the critics will be right this time. But many/all of these EXACT same objections were voiced at the time in the other thread (including some novel ones such as the presence of Jermaine Gresham, I trust nobody decided to forego drafting Hill in dynasty leagues on account of that reason, he isn't even on the team any more, which was predicted at the time?) BEFORE Hill beat out Bernard. I just find it odd they would be more compelling AFTER Bernard was beat out by Hill. It is as if last year didn't happen?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Hill put the ground on the ball twice, assuming that doesn't happen every week, he proved to be the more talented back last year.

The Bernard bogeyman was invoked all last year and was wrong then.

Wait....what?

Wait....what? Wait.... what?

That he put the ball on the ground twice and that won't happen every week?

Or, the Bernard bogeyman was invoked all last year and ended up being wrong? Hill began the year as the backup, decisively beat out Bernard and led all NFL backs in yardage the last nine games of the season.

Serious question: did you watch the game?

If you did, you would know that Bernard is a threat to Hill's touches.

Hill will get most of the goal line touchesBernard will get most of the pass receptions

they will share carries between the 20's

Given their draft position, that will make the people who picked Bernard very happy and the people who picked Hill very sad.

Good post, you could be right.

I agree with the first two. Point three was not how the split or distribution went down last year after Hill decisively beat out Bernard upon returning, so if that isn't borne out (AGAIN ), the conclusion/s may not necessarily follow.

 

[Bob Magaw]

at all the posters who dismissed Bernard in this thread.

Other than the fact that Hill began the year as a backup, beat out Bernard, had a historically good second half by some measures, dominated carries even once Bernard returned, and Bernard had very ordinary numbers in his first two years, that makes total sense. * Per the earlier, did you watch the game and if so, you would know blah, blah, blah comment (there is this new thing that has been going on for 100,000 years or so called humans sometimes see things differently despite comparable visual input, you may be familiar with the phenomenon of witness testimony often not being identical, etc - it is a patronizing stance to assume if others see something different, it must be because they "didn't watch the game"), I've seen Bernard play for the past two years. If we see things differently over THAT time frame, I'll extend you the courtesy of not assuming it is because "you must not be watching games". In two years, I've found him to be below average as an inside runner, certainly nothing special. I am more impressed with him as a receiving back and in space, where he is above average, but that skill set doesn't present a conflict with Hill. Did he have a good day? Sure. Is my scouting impression going to blow with the wind and be drastically revised based on a game? No. Are you really any different? If a player you hated has a good game, do you immediately blow your team up to acquire him? If a player you thought was great has an awful game, do you cut him on the spot? If not to either of those, we aren't that different. Over a longer period of time, do I change my mind and revise opinions? Of course. But they don't blow with the wind from game to game. How would you respond if Bernard turns in a poor game next week, and you are criticized for not seeing that he won't be a threat to Hill. What if Bernard has staggered, alternate good and bad games week to week all season. Wouldn't it be kind of bi-polar (don't mean in the technical sense, just a metaphor for being all over the place, so to speak) to change your mind on a weekly basis - he is good, no he isn't, he is bad, no he isn't, he is good after all, etc.?

 

[JuniorNB]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

How many teams would Hill and Bernard start for, respectively?

Exactly, there ya go.

 

[TZMarkie]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

I haven't entered this conversation,instead choosing to just read through it quietly thusfar,but whatever you say about Bob and his "loss", well the above is ridiculous.

So you are basically saying that we are supposed to completely forget what he did last year.

(I can almost see a point, and thats a pretty weak point at best)

But what is even worse, is that people like yourself are willing to essentially base the future of this (and any RB scenario) on basically one poor game.

I can get you might think this will eventually be a backfield split, but to establish your opinion on this one game, and completely discount last week and the latter half of last year is downright foolish, and recency bias at its finest.

For the record, I own precisely one share of Hill, and I obtained Bernard later in the same draft.

I never get early RBs anymore, instead acquiring stud WRs early and running my teams with a vast selection of RB2 types and playing matchups.

But Hill fell to me later than expected, and the WRs I wanted were gone, so I gladly took the chance on Hill.

The truth of the matter is, there is probably a little bit of both sides of the argument going to happen on this one.

Hill will likely be labelled as the "lead back", but more along the lines of a 70-30 split..... that is until he "proves" himself again and takes over showing he is the more durable back, and eliminates the fumbles.

I'd like to say that Hill will be the absolute go-to guy next week and get the majority of the work again, but the fact is people in every day life are just as short sighted and are overcome with recency bias like the above poster. (just like some NFL coaches)

So it will likely be a few weeks until this is truly "settled", if it ever does at all.

The sad part, is most of these posters will be nowhere to be found, when (and if) Hill takes over again.

Oh wait, maybe they will be in the Jamaal Charles threads, proclaiming that Knile Davis will be the next bellcow in KC.

After all Jamaal Charles, fumbled two times this week didn't he????

TZM

 

[Biabreakable]

Giovani Bernard takes over as Jeremy Hill gets benched by Bengals

Head coach Marvin Lewis is a stern believer in not allowing backs to turn the ball over and keep getting touches. That's why Hill is likely in Lewis' doghouse after putting the ball on the ground twice in just 11 touches. Having Gio only makes it easier for Lewis to go with another option.

"We had a little combination of both," Lewis said after the game. "Gio was carrying the ball, but we can’t have a back fumbling the football either. Jeremy’s a talented young player, and we’ve got to keep the football. That wasn’t part of his deal last year, and we can’t let it creep in."
It was clear in this game that Hill's gaffes helped Bernard become the top back after he lost that role in a similar manner last year. Point being, Gio is the No. 1 back heading into a Week 3 date with the Ravens and going forward as long as he can keep producing like he has the first two weeks.

"When the opportunity arises, that’s the biggest thing for anybody," Bernard said on Sunday afternoon. "Anybody out there with opportunities, go ahead and just do what you do."

However, just like last year, the No. 1 running back spot could quickly go back to being Hill's, but for now, he's lost that.

Quick hits: fumbles impact Gio; Hill agrees with move; CBs, Geno rule; Whit leads another sack blank

Bengals running back Giovani Bernard strapped his team on his back in the steamy fourth quarter of a tight AFC game that may very well determine a play-off spot, skittering for 66 of his 120 yards in the 24-19 victory over the Chargers at Paul Brown Stadium.

And, yes, he had some motivation from that key red-zone fumble against the Chargers in the Wild Card loss at Paul Brown Stadium 623 days ago.

“It burned in my belly,” Bernard said . . .

It is ironic because it was two Jeremy Hill fumbles that put him out there. When Hill, the other half of the duo thatA.J. Green called “Lightning and Thunder,” after the game, bobbled a pitch and lost it with 7:44 left in the third quarter, Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis benched him.

“I would have taken me out, too,” Hill said. “You can’t do that.”

Hand it to Hill. He was right there at his locker and took on all media after the game. He may be in the doghouse, but he proved you can be a stand-up guy in it.

“No one has talked to me,” Hill said. “They don’t need to. It’s pretty obvious. We can sit there and talk about what happened doing this and doing that. At the end of the day it’s over with and you have to move on to the next week. I can’t let it happen.

“I wouldn’t put myself back in in that situation,” he said. “Guy turned the ball over twice. He hurt the team. You lose games like that. Especially in this league with that quarterback. I can’t be mad at anybody but myself.” . . .

 

[Bob Magaw]

Lewis switched last year when Hill outplayed Bernard. Now he has switched again. What is he going to do if Bernard underwhelms and Hill outplays him again? I find it unlikely Bernard has a completely locked down, hermetically sealed, air tight hold on the starting gig for his entire tenure in CIN, given Lewis handling of the position dating back to last year. I didn't think he was going to go full Belichick. This seems a little fickle, to me.

Questions:

What will the distribution be?

Who gets goal line carries?

If Bernard gets a larger share of carries than recently, will he be more vulnerable to wear/break down?

What if a Bernard bombs in the re-starter role, how long will his leash be?

As long as CIN is winning, it doesn't matter to them. What if they make the playoffs again, and get bounced in the first game, because Bernard didn't play well? How long is the leash of Lewis and Dalton?

Without seeing these questions answered in the coming weeks/months, difficult to say what their dynasty draft value is. If Bernard fumbles a few games in a row, will he get benched?

Maybe Lewis and/or Jackson read Hill the riot act after the last fumble, and informed him if he kept fumbling Bernard was going to be the starter if he can't be reliable and trustworthy, and he fumbles not once but twice, they could think he doesn't get it.

Maybe motivate Tatum Bell situation? That didn't work out so good last time. Congrats to Bernard owners, have him in one of two dynasty leagues that I have Hill.

* The article has a qualifier - Bernard now has the job as long as he produces like he has the first two weeks. That is potentially a pretty big proviso/caveat. How far off the pace can he be and retain the job? At what point could he lose it? Because he hasn't played like his recent work for much of his career, and it is unclear three years into it if he could handle a heavy workload. I doubt he wants to change starters on a weekly basis, but NE does at times (though CIN has Dalton, not Brady, and Lewis instead of Belichick, so what works for one team, won't necessarily for the other).

What is Bernard and Hill's dynasty value as of today?

 

[addicted2ff]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

I haven't entered this conversation,instead choosing to just read through it quietly thusfar,but whatever you say about Bob and his "loss", well the above is ridiculous.

So you are basically saying that we are supposed to completely forget what he did last year.

(I can almost see a point, and thats a pretty weak point at best)

But what is even worse, is that people like yourself are willing to essentially base the future of this (and any RB scenario) on basically one poor game.

I can get you might think this will eventually be a backfield split, but to establish your opinion on this one game, and completely discount last week and the latter half of last year is downright foolish, and recency bias at its finest.

For the record, I own precisely one share of Hill, and I obtained Bernard later in the same draft.

I never get early RBs anymore, instead acquiring stud WRs early and running my teams with a vast selection of RB2 types and playing matchups.

But Hill fell to me later than expected, and the WRs I wanted were gone, so I gladly took the chance on Hill.

The truth of the matter is, there is probably a little bit of both sides of the argument going to happen on this one.

Hill will likely be labelled as the "lead back", but more along the lines of a 70-30 split..... that is until he "proves" himself again and takes over showing he is the more durable back, and eliminates the fumbles.

I'd like to say that Hill will be the absolute go-to guy next week and get the majority of the work again, but the fact is people in every day life are just as short sighted and are overcome with recency bias like the above poster. (just like some NFL coaches)

So it will likely be a few weeks until this is truly "settled", if it ever does at all.

The sad part, is most of these posters will be nowhere to be found, when (and if) Hill takes over again.

Oh wait, maybe they will be in the Jamaal Charles threads, proclaiming that Knile Davis will be the next bellcow in KC.

After all Jamaal Charles, fumbled two times this week didn't he????

TZM

What are you talking about? Jamaal is a proven talented runner who's team needs him to win games. Hill isn't proven(no, half a season doesn't count), isn't talented, and is interchangeable enough with his backup to be benched for fumbling.

 

[(HULK)]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

 

[JuniorNB]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

I haven't entered this conversation,instead choosing to just read through it quietly thusfar,but whatever you say about Bob and his "loss", well the above is ridiculous.

So you are basically saying that we are supposed to completely forget what he did last year.

(I can almost see a point, and thats a pretty weak point at best)

But what is even worse, is that people like yourself are willing to essentially base the future of this (and any RB scenario) on basically one poor game.

I can get you might think this will eventually be a backfield split, but to establish your opinion on this one game, and completely discount last week and the latter half of last year is downright foolish, and recency bias at its finest.

For the record, I own precisely one share of Hill, and I obtained Bernard later in the same draft.

I never get early RBs anymore, instead acquiring stud WRs early and running my teams with a vast selection of RB2 types and playing matchups.

But Hill fell to me later than expected, and the WRs I wanted were gone, so I gladly took the chance on Hill.

The truth of the matter is, there is probably a little bit of both sides of the argument going to happen on this one.

Hill will likely be labelled as the "lead back", but more along the lines of a 70-30 split..... that is until he "proves" himself again and takes over showing he is the more durable back, and eliminates the fumbles.

I'd like to say that Hill will be the absolute go-to guy next week and get the majority of the work again, but the fact is people in every day life are just as short sighted and are overcome with recency bias like the above poster. (just like some NFL coaches)

So it will likely be a few weeks until this is truly "settled", if it ever does at all.

The sad part, is most of these posters will be nowhere to be found, when (and if) Hill takes over again.

Oh wait, maybe they will be in the Jamaal Charles threads, proclaiming that Knile Davis will be the next bellcow in KC.

After all Jamaal Charles, fumbled two times this week didn't he????

TZM

I'm not saying he should cut the guy. But if you're going to come at it hard and start comparing Hill to Jim Brown and Eric Dickerson, then expect to get it back hard when he looks more like Eric Bienamy. The thread title claims that Hill will he the No. 1 back in fantasy football. He's not even the No. 1 back on his team.

 

[Zdravko]

Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph about how Hill will regain his top-5 RB standing. Okay, fine, maybe he will, although I suspect most people who drafted him as a top-5 RB are now quietly adjusting expectations.

I don't have a problem calling the fumbles an aberration. I also don't think Bernard can take more than 10-14 carries per game, max. However, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why does Bernard look so much better than Hill right now? Why are their respective stats (and my eye test) misleading?

PS: As many savvy owners pointed out during the pre-season: check out the Bengals schedule this year vs. last year!

 

[shadyridr]

Yikes after reading that article it looks like gio is the starter now. Don't think you can start hill after reading that article.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't think the article is from an official team source site. I didn't hear any smoking-type quotes from any of the principals explicitly stating Bernard is starting week 3. Even if he is, I also don't see any specific quotes this is a permanent move. And even if they say it is, will it be. Lot of uncertainty.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

I haven't entered this conversation,instead choosing to just read through it quietly thusfar,but whatever you say about Bob and his "loss", well the above is ridiculous.

So you are basically saying that we are supposed to completely forget what he did last year.

(I can almost see a point, and thats a pretty weak point at best)

But what is even worse, is that people like yourself are willing to essentially base the future of this (and any RB scenario) on basically one poor game.

I can get you might think this will eventually be a backfield split, but to establish your opinion on this one game, and completely discount last week and the latter half of last year is downright foolish, and recency bias at its finest.

For the record, I own precisely one share of Hill, and I obtained Bernard later in the same draft.

I never get early RBs anymore, instead acquiring stud WRs early and running my teams with a vast selection of RB2 types and playing matchups.

But Hill fell to me later than expected, and the WRs I wanted were gone, so I gladly took the chance on Hill.

The truth of the matter is, there is probably a little bit of both sides of the argument going to happen on this one.

Hill will likely be labelled as the "lead back", but more along the lines of a 70-30 split..... that is until he "proves" himself again and takes over showing he is the more durable back, and eliminates the fumbles.

I'd like to say that Hill will be the absolute go-to guy next week and get the majority of the work again, but the fact is people in every day life are just as short sighted and are overcome with recency bias like the above poster. (just like some NFL coaches)

So it will likely be a few weeks until this is truly "settled", if it ever does at all.

The sad part, is most of these posters will be nowhere to be found, when (and if) Hill takes over again.

Oh wait, maybe they will be in the Jamaal Charles threads, proclaiming that Knile Davis will be the next bellcow in KC.

After all Jamaal Charles, fumbled two times this week didn't he????

TZM

What are you talking about? Jamaal is a proven talented runner who's team needs him to win games. Hill isn't proven(no, half a season doesn't count), isn't talented, and is interchangeable enough with his backup to be benched for fumbling.

We'll see if he is benched. Or if he is, how permanent it turns out to be.

You are entitled to your opinion, it isn't the consensus that Hill isn't talented, though.

 

[eoMMan]

#1 in fumbling....Amirite? Amirite?

Lolz

 

[Bob Magaw]

Wow. I feel kinda bad for Bob. I've made picks in the past that turned out to be horrible and can remember resorting to previous seasons or cute articles to try to dispute what everyone is seeing with their own eyes. It's not an envious position to be in.

One tip I'd give him: Know when to bail on the desperate excuses. People will quote them.and throw them in your face later. Sorry for your loss.

I haven't entered this conversation,instead choosing to just read through it quietly thusfar,but whatever you say about Bob and his "loss", well the above is ridiculous.

So you are basically saying that we are supposed to completely forget what he did last year.

(I can almost see a point, and thats a pretty weak point at best)

But what is even worse, is that people like yourself are willing to essentially base the future of this (and any RB scenario) on basically one poor game.

I can get you might think this will eventually be a backfield split, but to establish your opinion on this one game, and completely discount last week and the latter half of last year is downright foolish, and recency bias at its finest.

For the record, I own precisely one share of Hill, and I obtained Bernard later in the same draft.

I never get early RBs anymore, instead acquiring stud WRs early and running my teams with a vast selection of RB2 types and playing matchups.

But Hill fell to me later than expected, and the WRs I wanted were gone, so I gladly took the chance on Hill.

The truth of the matter is, there is probably a little bit of both sides of the argument going to happen on this one.

Hill will likely be labelled as the "lead back", but more along the lines of a 70-30 split..... that is until he "proves" himself again and takes over showing he is the more durable back, and eliminates the fumbles.

I'd like to say that Hill will be the absolute go-to guy next week and get the majority of the work again, but the fact is people in every day life are just as short sighted and are overcome with recency bias like the above poster. (just like some NFL coaches)

So it will likely be a few weeks until this is truly "settled", if it ever does at all.

The sad part, is most of these posters will be nowhere to be found, when (and if) Hill takes over again.

Oh wait, maybe they will be in the Jamaal Charles threads, proclaiming that Knile Davis will be the next bellcow in KC.

After all Jamaal Charles, fumbled two times this week didn't he????

TZM

I'm not saying he should cut the guy. But if you're going to come at it hard and start comparing Hill to Jim Brown and Eric Dickerson, then expect to get it back hard when he looks more like Eric Bienamy. The thread title claims that Hill will he the No. 1 back in fantasy football. He's not even the No. 1 back on his team.

People are getting way too hung up on the thread title (same with the obsessive gambler). Because somebody posts something positive in the thread, isn't synonymous with a 100% overlap with the OP take (#1).I mentioned Hill doing things other great backs haven't. That doesn't mean I think he is better than or even as good them. Just that it got my attention that he did things they didn't, and I have a hard time explaining away four 145+ yard games in a half season of starting as "luck". Just like if I beat Usain Bolt in the 100 m., it wouldn't mean I was as great a sprinter or one of the best of all time, but it might get your attention that I was faster than you realized, and might be hard to explain away by "luck".

Where did you rank Hill and Bernard before today in dynasty? How much would one game change things for you? I stand by my impressions that Hill decisively outplayed Bernard down the stretch last year, and Bernard hasn't been a special back in his first two years. If your life advice is to make 180 degree, whiplash inducing scouting changes from game to game, I hope that works for you junior. Why not in the same game flip flop? Good run means he is great. Next run bad, oh, he is bad, I was wrong (never did like that guy ). Maybe even on the same run, he can look good to start = good back, if he makes a bad cutback, radically mutate your scouting take to how he is now terrible. Maybe give that a try.

So what am I supposed to say, Hill is now bad and Bernard great, according to the blow with the wind from game to game, whiplash-inducing school of scouting, and Bernard fumbles 3 X next Sunday, and he gets in the dog house of Marvin "Belichick" Lewis, and Hill replaces him in a week, how do I know YOUR then ill-advised life advice won't come back to haunt me.

So yeah, no, but thanks for playin. If I'm going to be wrong, it will be with my thoughts, not the zombie slave thoughts of what somebody else thought I should think.

 

[Biabreakable]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

A little bit of both I think.

The second quote is from their beat writer, I thought Hill said all the right things except for his comment "that QB" which seems to suggest that perhaps some QBs could overcome 2 fumbles and still win, but that Dalton can't? The Bengals did still win.

I didn't hear those comments in the video of the interview with Hill on the web site. I assume the beat writer did quote him accurately however.

 

[Biabreakable]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't think the article is from an official team source site. I didn't hear any smoking-type quotes from any of the principals explicitly stating Bernard is starting week 3. Even if he is, I also don't see any specific quotes this is a permanent move. And even if they say it is, will it be. Lot of uncertainty.

Click on the links and the source is obvious Bob.

 

[shadyridr]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

A little bit of both I think.

The second quote is from their beat writer, I thought Hill said all the right things except for his comment "that QB" which seems to suggest that perhaps some QBs could overcome 2 fumbles and still win, but that Dalton can't? The Bengals did still win.

I didn't hear those comments in the video of the interview with Hill on the web site. I assume the beat writer did quote him accurately however.

that qb meaning rivers

 

[Bob Magaw]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't think the article is from an official team source site. I didn't hear any smoking-type quotes from any of the principals explicitly stating Bernard is starting week 3. Even if he is, I also don't see any specific quotes this is a permanent move. And even if they say it is, will it be. Lot of uncertainty.

Click on the links and the source is obvious Bob.

I did, and it didn't look like an "official" team source, like I think of Nick Wagoner of ESPN for the Rams (or a Jim Thomas, or Bernie Miklasz, or Kuharsky for the Titans, etc.). But I'm not familiar with this beat reporter.

What is your degree of confidence Bernard is starting Sunday, and this isn't a garbled transmission?

 

[Biabreakable]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't think the article is from an official team source site. I didn't hear any smoking-type quotes from any of the principals explicitly stating Bernard is starting week 3. Even if he is, I also don't see any specific quotes this is a permanent move. And even if they say it is, will it be. Lot of uncertainty.

Click on the links and the source is obvious Bob.

I did, and it didn't look like an "official" team source, like I think of Nick Wagoner of ESPN for the Rams (or a Jim Thomas, or Bernie Miklasz, or Kuharsky for the Titans, etc.). But I'm not familiar with this beat reporter.

What is your degree of confidence Bernard is starting Sunday, and this isn't a garbled transmission?

No the transmission isn't garbled despite your attempts to discredit it.

Geoff Hobson is the editor of the official Bengals.com website which is generally PR for the team, but I don't think it gets much more official than that.

I don't know who Bengals fans favorite writers might be or what their opinion of Hobson is.

I don't have an opinion about if Bernard will start next week or if that will matter as far as the distribution of touches between the RB will be. I am just sharing information from individuals who do closely follow the team.

 

[shader]

This situation is not changing.

I think a lot of people had some weird idea that Hill was going to take over and get 25 carries a game, while Bernard was going to get 5 and a bunch of receptions.

As many posted in this thread, there was no reason to think that would happen.

Gio AND Hill are both extremely talented. Gio is an explosive playmaker and my biggest frustration with Cincy last year was the unoriginal way in which they ran him. (I-formation up the middle). I haven't watched the game, but when I do I bet I'll see a lot of runs to the outside, which would play to the strengths of Gio.

As for Hill, it's clear the fumbles got him benched. Gio isn't going to "take over" and Hill isn't going to be valueless.

The situation is going to be what is was last year and what is was always going to be, an RBBC with two great backs.

For Cincy fans, they have to be excited. Offense looks explosive.

 

[Tau837]

at all the posters who dismissed Bernard in this thread.

Other than the fact that Hill began the year as a backup, beat out Bernard, had a historically good second half by some measures, dominated carries even once Bernard returned, and Bernard had very ordinary numbers in his first two years, that makes total sense. * Per the earlier, did you watch the game and if so, you would know blah, blah, blah comment (there is this new thing that has been going on for 100,000 years or so called humans sometimes see things differently despite comparable visual input, you may be familiar with the phenomenon of witness testimony often not being identical, etc - it is a patronizing stance to assume if others see something different, it must be because they "didn't watch the game"), I've seen Bernard play for the past two years. If we see things differently over THAT time frame, I'll extend you the courtesy of not assuming it is because "you must not be watching games". In two years, I've found him to be below average as an inside runner, certainly nothing special. I am more impressed with him as a receiving back and in space, where he is above average, but that skill set doesn't present a conflict with Hill. Did he have a good day? Sure. Is my scouting impression going to blow with the wind and be drastically revised based on a game? No. Are you really any different? If a player you hated has a good game, do you immediately blow your team up to acquire him? If a player you thought was great has an awful game, do you cut him on the spot? If not to either of those, we aren't that different. Over a longer period of time, do I change my mind and revise opinions? Of course. But they don't blow with the wind from game to game. How would you respond if Bernard turns in a poor game next week, and you are criticized for not seeing that he won't be a threat to Hill. What if Bernard has staggered, alternate good and bad games week to week all season. Wouldn't it be kind of bi-polar (don't mean in the technical sense, just a metaphor for being all over the place, so to speak) to change your mind on a weekly basis - he is good, no he isn't, he is bad, no he isn't, he is good after all, etc.?

First off, brevity is your friend. I find that I can't read most of your lengthy posts. I read this one since you responded to my comment.

You can blather on all you want about how good Hill looked in the latter half of last season, but it doesn't change these facts:

1. Bernard was the 37th overall pick in the draft, so the team made a significant investment to acquire him.

2. Bernard is 23 years old.

3. Bernard is very talented.

4. Bernard averaged 77 yards from scrimmage in 29 games in his first 2 seasons, with 15 total TDs.

IMO it was obvious that Bernard was going to get enough touches to cut into Hill's touches and cap Hill's ceiling. People who assumed otherwise were off base. If you don't get that, we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Zdravko]

It's sad that CJ Anderson doesn't enjoy the same support in his own thread....It should be a much easier job for a passionate crusader to dress down Hillman than Bernard!

Next game is at Ravens. Injury aside, I would wager they split carries 50-50 or better in favor of Bernard, and he will still get his 4-5 targets. Any takers?

 

[ponchsox]

Fantasy wise, are both RB2 in standard?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Wait, did Lewis say he is switching out is the author taking liberties and making his own inferences?

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't think the article is from an official team source site. I didn't hear any smoking-type quotes from any of the principals explicitly stating Bernard is starting week 3. Even if he is, I also don't see any specific quotes this is a permanent move. And even if they say it is, will it be. Lot of uncertainty.

Click on the links and the source is obvious Bob.

I did, and it didn't look like an "official" team source, like I think of Nick Wagoner of ESPN for the Rams (or a Jim Thomas, or Bernie Miklasz, or Kuharsky for the Titans, etc.). But I'm not familiar with this beat reporter.What is your degree of confidence Bernard is starting Sunday, and this isn't a garbled transmission?

No the transmission isn't garbled despite your attempts to discredit it.

Geoff Hobson is the editor of the official Bengals.com website which is generally PR for the team, but I don't think it gets much more official than that.

I don't know who Bengals fans favorite writers might be or what their opinion of Hobson is.

I don't have an opinion about if Bernard will start next week or if that will matter as far as the distribution of touches between the RB will be. I am just sharing information from individuals who do closely follow the team.

I'm not trying to discredit anybody, I was just stating my impressions and trying to clarify this.There are two links, two sites, one is official, one isn't (I don't think), they are saying dramatically different things.

I clicked on the first link and it wasn't the team site, I forgot there were two in the excitement. I do appreciate your posting them.

The official site isn't saying Bernard is starting next week, after double checking. The unofficial site did say that, and it is unclear how or if it was even sourced (per hulk's question). That is what I meant by garbled transmission, IF Lewis didn't say Bernard is starting, than obviously the author took liberties and was overreaching (ie - garbled).

 

[Bob Magaw]

at all the posters who dismissed Bernard in this thread.

Other than the fact that Hill began the year as a backup, beat out Bernard, had a historically good second half by some measures, dominated carries even once Bernard returned, and Bernard had very ordinary numbers in his first two years, that makes total sense. * Per the earlier, did you watch the game and if so, you would know blah, blah, blah comment (there is this new thing that has been going on for 100,000 years or so called humans sometimes see things differently despite comparable visual input, you may be familiar with the phenomenon of witness testimony often not being identical, etc - it is a patronizing stance to assume if others see something different, it must be because they "didn't watch the game"), I've seen Bernard play for the past two years. If we see things differently over THAT time frame, I'll extend you the courtesy of not assuming it is because "you must not be watching games". In two years, I've found him to be below average as an inside runner, certainly nothing special. I am more impressed with him as a receiving back and in space, where he is above average, but that skill set doesn't present a conflict with Hill. Did he have a good day? Sure. Is my scouting impression going to blow with the wind and be drastically revised based on a game? No. Are you really any different? If a player you hated has a good game, do you immediately blow your team up to acquire him? If a player you thought was great has an awful game, do you cut him on the spot? If not to either of those, we aren't that different. Over a longer period of time, do I change my mind and revise opinions? Of course. But they don't blow with the wind from game to game. How would you respond if Bernard turns in a poor game next week, and you are criticized for not seeing that he won't be a threat to Hill. What if Bernard has staggered, alternate good and bad games week to week all season. Wouldn't it be kind of bi-polar (don't mean in the technical sense, just a metaphor for being all over the place, so to speak) to change your mind on a weekly basis - he is good, no he isn't, he is bad, no he isn't, he is good after all, etc.?

First off, brevity is your friend. I find that I can't read most of your lengthy posts. I read this one since you responded to my comment.

You can blather on all you want about how good Hill looked in the latter half of last season, but it doesn't change these facts:

1. Bernard was the 37th overall pick in the draft, so the team made a significant investment to acquire him.

2. Bernard is 23 years old.

3. Bernard is very talented.

4. Bernard averaged 77 yards from scrimmage in 29 games in his first 2 seasons, with 15 total TDs.

IMO it was obvious that Bernard was going to get enough touches to cut into Hill's touches and cap Hill's ceiling. People who assumed otherwise were off base. If you don't get that, we can agree to disagree and move on.

I know what you mean, can't read 99% of your blather for other reasons related to the following. It is patronizing in highly ambiguous situations like this to assume just because somebody sees things differently they weren't watching the game. You obviously weren't watching Hill last year, thus the shrill histrionics,1) The Chargers expended a significant pick on Ryan Leaf. How did that work out? Hill was also a second round pick, they weren't drafted with labels affixed to their heads that pedigree alone assured them of a certain percentage of carries for perpetuity, Higher picks get beat out by lower picks at the same position ALL THE TIME, like, I don't know, oh yeah, like Bernard last year. Is the WR ARI drafted in the first ahead of Boldin still in the league, how did that work out. Was that a fact?

2) Hill is young, too, that has absolutely no bearing on who is more talented, which he clearly showed he was last year in beating Bernard out. If there talent was comparable and they are the same age, why would Hill have "beat him out", and Lewis not left things in the backfield status quo? Another bizarrely disjointed fact with the rest that are Rorshach blots and not necessarily connected how you arbitrarily and subjectively have lassoed them together.

3) More Rorshach projections, and this isn't a fact, it is your subjective interpretation and opinion. You are welcome to it, but I didn't say you must not be watching games if we disagree. If he was as talented as you seem to think, why did he lose his job, and why have his rushing stats over two years suffer in the comparison with what Hill did in just 8 games as a starter. What about losing his job to a rookie last year screams very talented? He is arguably a talented receiving back if you qualify it that way which you didn't, not as a complete back or between the tackles runner, where he has been mediocre and very ordinary.

4) Hill had 9 TDs in basically a half season. You have to say yards from scrimmage because his rushing totals are pretty meager and paltry, compared to Hill. Like I said, he doesn't cut it as a between the tackles runner, he is best in space and as a receiving back, where he is arguably good. And in that role, he doesn't need to conflict with Hill. He can make up for lost carries to the superior pure rusher Hill with more touches and increased usage in the passing game. Oh, yeah, exactly like he was used last year after Hill decisively beat him out, because of his average, mediocre pure rushing skills. What does he average as a rusher on a per game basis? So let him get his receptions, where he can flourish, and Hill his carries, where he can.

You can bluster all you want, you can huff, and puff, and blow your house down, but repeating the same hackneyed cliches don't make them true, if Hill led the NFL in rushing the last nine games of the season, and dominated RBBC carries even AFTER Bernard returned, than it is clear Bernard would cap his ceiling... WHY? I'm not a math wiz, but how could he have been any better than #1 in the last 9 games.

Obviously you weren't paying attention to last year and missed the memo that Hill decisively outplayed Bernard, which is why your assumptions are so off base. Since you don't get that, agree to disagree.

 

[Tau837]

at you saying that I am the one resorting to "shrill histrionics."

I have made a couple of posts now saying that Bernard is a threat to Hill's touches. Given the purpose of this thread -- originally to debate if Hill will finish as RB #1, morphed into discussion of how high he will finish -- Bernard's likely workload is relevant to the discussion.

Just to be clear, are you saying you do not see Bernard as any threat to Hill's touches? If you agree he is a threat, then we agree, and I'm not sure why you are choosing to pick an argument with me and others. If you don't agree he is a threat, then I don't know what to tell you after yesterday.

 

[Tau837]

First off, brevity is your friend. I find that I can't read most of your lengthy posts. I read this one since you responded to my comment.

You can blather on all you want about how good Hill looked in the latter half of last season, but it doesn't change these facts:

1. Bernard was the 37th overall pick in the draft, so the team made a significant investment to acquire him.

2. Bernard is 23 years old.

3. Bernard is very talented.

4. Bernard averaged 77 yards from scrimmage in 29 games in his first 2 seasons, with 15 total TDs.

IMO it was obvious that Bernard was going to get enough touches to cut into Hill's touches and cap Hill's ceiling. People who assumed otherwise were off base. If you don't get that, we can agree to disagree and move on.

1) The Chargers expended a significant pick on Ryan Leaf. How did that work out?

I agree if Bernard was a bust to the degree that Leaf was, he would have no affect on Hill's touches. Is that your position? Do you expect Bernard to be out of the NFL soon?

2) Hill is young, too, that has absolutely no bearing on who is more talented, which he clearly showed he was last year in beating Bernard out. If there talent was comparable and they are the same age, why would Hill have "beat him out", and Lewis not left things in the backfield status quo? Another bizarrely disjointed fact with the rest that are Rorshach blots and not necessarily connected how you arbitrarily and subjectively have lassoed them together.

The reason Bernard's age matters has to do with Bernard, not Hill. Sometimes NFL RBs don't play their best football in their first couple of seasons. Especially when they come into the NFL at an early age, as Bernard did at age 21. Many posters in this forum, apparently including you, wrote off Bernard after last season. The point is, the Bengals didn't.

3) More Rorshach projections, and this isn't a fact, it is your subjective interpretation and opinion. You are welcome to it, but I didn't say you must not be watching games if we disagree. If he was as talented as you seem to think, why did he lose his job, and why have his rushing stats over two years suffer in the comparison with what Hill did in just 8 games as a starter. What about losing his job to a rookie last year screams very talented? He is arguably a talented receiving back if you qualify it that way which you didn't, not as a complete back or between the tackles runner, where he has been mediocre and very ordinary.

It is a small sample size, but nevertheless, compare their performance as rushers so far this season:

Hill: 29/102 (3.5 ypc)

Bernard: 28/186 (6.6 ypc)

You obviously feel Hill is very talented. How do you reconcile this difference if you don't agree that Bernard is also talented rushing the ball?

4) Hill had 9 TDs in basically a half season. You have to say yards from scrimmage because his rushing totals are pretty meager and paltry, compared to Hill. Like I said, he doesn't cut it as a between the tackles runner, he is best in space and as a receiving back, where he is arguably good. And in that role, he doesn't need to conflict with Hill. He can make up for lost carries to the superior pure rusher Hill with more touches and increased usage in the passing game. Oh, yeah, exactly like he was used last year after Hill decisively beat him out, because of his average, mediocre pure rushing skills. What does he average as a rusher on a per game basis? So let him get his receptions, where he can flourish, and Hill his carries, where he can.

Yes, Hill is a better inside rusher, and Bernard is better in space. That is exactly the point, and the reason why no one should have expected that Bernard would not get a substantial share of the RB touches.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I appreciate the innocent babe in the woods posturing.

It started with the condescending remark on your part.

Hill fumbled twice and was benched, possibly for the second half, possibly longer. It appears Hill may have been more a threat to Hill than Bernard. It is possible to be "right" sometimes for the wrong reasons. If Hill has a catastrophic, career ending lumberjack accident, that doesn't make I told you so arguments any more intelligible. Some primitive cultures no doubt think when they wave a stick at the sun, it "causes" it to rise. Unless you predicted Hill would fumble twice Sunday and be unseated (which I would acknowledge a prescient call), than the turn of events isn't necessarily related to the causes you think they are. You still haven't stated what about Hill decisively beating out Bernard last year and finishing #1 in the second half of the season screamed Bernard would cap Hill's upside, and enabled you to precog it was obvious this would happen (though on the surface, looks due to fumbling, unrelated to your claims).

* Maxwell Smart looking at some Rorshach blots. The first three times, he describes - Man kissing a woman, man kissing a woman, man kissing a woman. Shrink - You seem fixated on a man kissing a woman. Smart - You're the one with the dirty pictures!

 

[jmo87usc]

My position on Hill and Bernard is relatively unchanged from two weeks ago. We knew they were both talented. We knew they could both be starters on another team. You basically have two very good RBs sharing one pie. Some weeks Hill will have better results, and some weeks Bernard will. Does that mean Hill can't finish as the top RB in Fantasy? No. But he will need to fix any issue with fumbling quickly to have a shot. Gio could finish as the top RB in fantasy as well. Especially in ppr. With so many injuries and timeshares at RB these days, finishing as the top RB isn't as glorious as it used to be. The difference in total points from RB1 to RB10 is not as large as it once was.

I bought into the Bengals system. You know they are going to run alot, and there will be plenty to go around for both Hill and Bernard. Earlier in this thread I called them a better version the 2007 JAX Rbs. Both will put up good numbers, and I am comfortable starting both as my RB package each week. One of them could end up as a top 5 RB, but I think both being in the top 12-15 is more realistic, and very valuable.

 

[dagwood]

This is a Batman and Robin situation. Two very talented RB's who have complimentary talents. Good for the Bengals. Bad for the fantasy owner.

The Denver situation is a little different. Where CJ is just overrated. And Denver line is awful.

Not sure either CJ or Hill will live up to the round 1 draft status.

 

[Banger]

sounds like a good time to buy Hill low from all of the 0-2 owners.

 

[Manster]

Nothing to see here. Hill at the end of the season will have a very solid year, and Gio will be his compliment.....don't overreact.....look at the people who dropped A.Robinson!

 

[dagwood]

sounds like a good time to buy Hill low from all of the 0-2 owners.

I hear this "buy low talk" thrown around a lot. I realize Hill owners are really depressed, but how low are they going in trade talks? Seems like if I was a hill owner which thankfully I am not, I would not let him go for that steep a discount. And no one is going to offer me his preseason value.

Just curious.

 

[Zdravko]

Denial is an early stage of grief. I think this thread has become Bob's free therapy forum

Now let's take a look below:

I know what you mean, can't read 99% of your blather for other reasons related to the following. It is patronizing in highly ambiguous situations like this to assume just because somebody sees things differently they weren't watching the game. You obviously weren't watching Hill last year, thus the shrill histrionics. I did not read any 'shrill histrionics'. Did anyone else? Just Win Baby is a very calm, knowledgeable and logical poster. He only said he finds it hard to read your full postings, because they tend to go on and on. Do you disagree that they do? If you want to be read and understood here, brevity is your friend. Insulting other posters generally is not.

1) The Chargers expended a significant pick on Ryan Leaf. How did that work out? Hill was also a second round pick, they weren't drafted with labels affixed to their heads that pedigree alone assured them of a certain percentage of carries for perpetuity, Higher picks get beat out by lower picks at the same position ALL THE TIME, like, I don't know, oh yeah, like Bernard last year. Is the WR ARI drafted in the first ahead of Boldin still in the league, how did that work out. Was that a fact? Another team used a top-3 pick on Trent Richardson. High picks bust all the time. However, on average, they don't. So your Ryan Leaf example doesn't prove anything. This whole point (1) has little relevance to the discussion.

2) Hill is young, too, that has absolutely no bearing on who is more talented, which he clearly showed he was last year in beating Bernard out. If there talent was comparable and they are the same age, why would Hill have "beat him out", and Lewis not left things in the backfield status quo? Another bizarrely disjointed fact with the rest that are Rorshach blots and not necessarily connected how you arbitrarily and subjectively have lassoed them together. Not sure what's the purpose of this point. Of course we agree Hill is young and of course we agree being young has no bearing on being talented. Hill earning more carries (and fewer targets) than Bernard at the end of last season does not have to be a reflection of talent. It could be a temporary consequence of injuries or simply a reflection of "division of labor" by skill set. Can't possibly conclude Hill is overall more talented than Bernard from this 'evidence'.

3) More Rorshach projections, and this isn't a fact, it is your subjective interpretation and opinion. You are welcome to it, but I didn't say you must not be watching games if we disagree. If he was as talented as you seem to think, why did he lose his job, and why have his rushing stats over two years suffer in the comparison with what Hill did in just 8 games as a starter. What about losing his job to a rookie last year screams very talented? He is arguably a talented receiving back if you qualify it that way which you didn't, not as a complete back or between the tackles runner, where he has been mediocre and very ordinary. If you are right and Bernard is mediocre and very ordinary, what does this say about Hill, given that Bernard is clearly outperforming him this season?

4) Hill had 9 TDs in basically a half season. You have to say yards from scrimmage because his rushing totals are pretty meager and paltry, compared to Hill. Like I said, he doesn't cut it as a between the tackles runner, he is best in space and as a receiving back, where he is arguably good. And in that role, he doesn't need to conflict with Hill. He can make up for lost carries to the superior pure rusher Hill with more touches and increased usage in the passing game. Oh, yeah, exactly like he was used last year after Hill decisively beat him out, because of his average, mediocre pure rushing skills. What does he average as a rusher on a per game basis? So let him get his receptions, where he can flourish, and Hill his carries, where he can. Does anybody disagree with you that Hill is the better between-the-tackles runner? I don't think so. So far, Hill has gotten his majority of the carries and Bernard has gotten his high receptions. So your post is absolutely correct. However, this is a thread about FF value. And, unfortunately, most leagues don't reward special points for running between the tackles but do reward special points-per-reception. So which one of the two backs has more fantasy value then?

You can bluster all you want, you can huff, and puff, and blow your house down, but repeating the same hackneyed cliches don't make them true, if Hill led the NFL in rushing the last nine games of the season, and dominated RBBC carries even AFTER Bernard returned, than it is clear Bernard would cap his ceiling... WHY? I'm not a math wiz, but how could he have been any better than #1 in the last 9 games. Of course Bernard's presence caps Hill's ceiling. Look at how many touches Hill gets with and without Bernard. If Bernard wasn't there, Hill's ceiling obviously would be much higher. FF101.

Obviously you weren't paying attention to last year and missed the memo that Hill decisively outplayed Bernard, which is why your assumptions are so off base. Since you don't get that, agree to disagree.

 

[shadyridr]

Holy words batman

 

[Buzzbait]

Nothing to see here. Hill at the end of the season will have a very solid year, and Gio will be his compliment.....don't overreact.

+1 The sky isn't falling and Hill will be fine. He got a lesson from the coaching staff that fumbles will not be tolerated after his second fumble of the day. He's still 1A in Cincy and the coaching staff knows it. Cincy will try and pound the ball next week against Balt and Hill will get the majority of carries and the GL work.

 

[Biabreakable]

5 step plan for Jeremy Hill owners

I think Bob is ready for step four or five now. But perhaps there is still a bit of step 3 remaining. The force is strong with this one!

 

[habsfan]

sounds like a good time to buy Hill low from all of the 0-2 owners.

I hear this "buy low talk" thrown around a lot. I realize Hill owners are really depressed, but how low are they going in trade talks? Seems like if I was a hill owner which thankfully I am not, I would not let him go for that steep a discount. And no one is going to offer me his preseason value.

Just curious.

I wish my leagues had a fraction of the "liquidity" I am constantly reading about in here.

When I inquire about Hill now, it comes off as subtle as a sledgehammer...

 

[Tau837]

I appreciate the innocent babe in the woods posturing.

It started with the condescending remark on your part.

Hill fumbled twice and was benched, possibly for the second half, possibly longer. It appears Hill may have been more a threat to Hill than Bernard. It is possible to be "right" sometimes for the wrong reasons. If Hill has a catastrophic, career ending lumberjack accident, that doesn't make I told you so arguments any more intelligible. Some primitive cultures no doubt think when they wave a stick at the sun, it "causes" it to rise. Unless you predicted Hill would fumble twice Sunday and be unseated (which I would acknowledge a prescient call), than the turn of events isn't necessarily related to the causes you think they are. You still haven't stated what about Hill decisively beating out Bernard last year and finishing #1 in the second half of the season screamed Bernard would cap Hill's upside, and enabled you to precog it was obvious this would happen (though on the surface, looks due to fumbling, unrelated to your claims).

* Maxwell Smart looking at some Rorshach blots. The first three times, he describes - Man kissing a woman, man kissing a woman, man kissing a woman. Shrink - You seem fixated on a man kissing a woman. Smart - You're the one with the dirty pictures!

Yes, I have stated my reasons that I expected Bernard to impact Hill's touches. You disagree and dismissed them. I think that is shortsighted, but I haven't attacked you for it.

For the record, I have made no condescending remarks. You interpreted my remark to be condescending, but it wasn't. I asked if you watched the game, because I could not imagine someone watching that game and going on to say that Bernard is no threat to Hill's touches. I stand corrected if you did watch the game (which you never answered) and somehow still have that opinion, despite what we just saw yesterday.

Regardless, maybe you should dial back your sensitivity a bit.

 

[jmo87usc]

Forgot to mention, the mood in this discussion has turned so depressing that it's laughable. Some people are so quick to write guys off so early. It's week 2 for crying out loud! Weeks 1-4 are like the new preseason in the NFL. This stuff corrects itself in more cases than not.

I haven't been in the Adrian Peterson, Demarco Murray, Marshawn Lynch and Shady McCoy threads. Are they full of suicide notes? I know we live in a time where instant gratification drives everything, but have a little patience.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Z, I'll start with the first point. This started when JWB responded to a difference of opinion with an are you watching the game remark. Are we 12? That is obnoxiously condescending. Not like the kindly, gentle board bodhisattva you are describing. Is blathering a kindly and respectful descriptive term and characterization? Maybe you can be more blasé and judgemental about it because the ad hominem attacks weren't directed at you. That is very big of you.

 

[dagwood]

Nothing to see here. Hill at the end of the season will have a very solid year, and Gio will be his compliment.....don't overreact.

+1 The sky isn't falling and Hill will be fine. He got a lesson from the coaching staff that fumbles will not be tolerated after his second fumble of the day. He's still 1A in Cincy and the coaching staff knows it. Cincy will try and pound the ball next week against Balt and Hill will get the majority of carries and the GL work.

Hill will have a hard time averaging 3 ypc "pounding" the ball against Baltimore

Bernard on the other hand should be a popular option for swing passes.

 

[davearm]

A comment up the thread that expected Hill to regain the starting role and a 70/30 split got me interested enough to research last season's snap counts.

I found what I anticipated I'd find -- Hill never had a 70/30 split while Bernard was healthy.

In the early part of 2014 (first 8 weeks), the split was Bernard 69%, Hill 31%.

For three weeks while Bernard was out, the split was Hill 71%, Burkhead and Peerman shared the other 29% pretty evenly.

Once Bernard was back, from weeks 12 to 18 the split was Hill 51%, Bernard 49%.

The first week Bernard was back (wk 12), it was 60/40 for Bernard. Things swung 60/40 in Hill's favor late in the regular season (15-17), then it went back to Bernard 66/34 in the Bengals' playoff game.

Bottom line, a 70/30 split for Hill was never realistic with Bernard healthy. 60/40 was best case, and 50/50 more likely.

Note, all of the above are snap count percentages.