(07-29-2017, 04:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And the last two years Jeremy Hill has averaged 814 rushing yards at 3.7 YPC.

One really good year three years ago doesn't make up for the last two years being complete shit at anything other than a goal-line back.

Hill's Rankings by YPC (min 160 carries):

2016- 20th of 25
2015- 26th of 27

Beat me to it. Nice job. 

(07-29-2017, 06:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course 1 good year matters. It shows you have the ability to perform. 

YPC takes a hit when it is stopped by the endzone 19 times in the last 2 years. 

I get folks like Mixon, but Hill is one of the better backs in the NFL. What team would not want a 230ish lb RB that has 19 TDS s in the last 2 years? Every offensive player on the Cincinnati Bengals took a hit last year.

To say what does he do besides score TDs seems kinda silly IMO

1 good year does not matter. Players can regress and things can change. I guess you bought into Matt Cassel the same way the Chiefs bought into him? 

Again, touchdowns are the most overrated stat in football. When hes getting the ball on the 1-5 yard line then hes going to have a lot of touchdowns even though other players did the bulk of the work getting there. 

And every offensive player did not take a hit last year. AJ Green was on pace to have a career year until he got hurt. 

(07-31-2017, 03:25 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Where exactly are you getting the 4 YPC stat from? In 2015 he had a 3.6 and in 2016 he had a 3.8 YPC. Are you making up stats? 

Jeremy Hill has carried the ball 667 times on his career. he has amassed 2757 yards. 2757 divided by 667 equals 4.13. This is not made up.

(07-31-2017, 11:21 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Many focus on that magical YPC number - 4.0. If < 4.0, many consider that RB to be below average. Jeremy Hill was 3.8 YPC. People give Bernard a pass because he's a proficient receiver.

Jeremy Hill was also 18th in total rush yards (839) and 14th in rush attempts (222).

However, when looking at stats from last year, it should be pointed out that many people considered LeGarrette Blount to have a great season....he had 3.9 YPC. He just had a lot of attempts and TDs to compensate, so people didn't focus as much on YPC for him compared to others.

Some other RBs with sub-4.0 YPC last year:
Todd Gurley (3.2)
Frank Gore (3.9)
Melvin Gordon (3.9)
Jonathan Stewart (3.8)
Matt Forte (3.7)


So yes, exactly as you say, Jeremy Hill is not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. But Hill isn't a top 10 RB, so there's room for improvement. If Mixon can provide that, great. If not, the Bengals still have a solid rushing attack.

To be fair, Hill was only 21st amongst RB's in yards from scrimmage in 2016.  He's an average starter as a runner, but offers next to nothing as a receiver, which makes him a below average starter/quality backup RB. There are some teams he could start for, but not a lot of contenders.

Beyond all that, my main issue with him is that he is limited as an outside runner and as a receiver, which limits what we can do with him in the game from a playcalling standpoint and makes the opposing defense's job a lot easier.  It just makes more sense to me that the back that's getting the majority of the snaps be able to run a majority of the plays.  

(07-31-2017, 03:15 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: TDs are the most overrated stat in the NFL. Hill will have the most TDs because he gets the ball on the one yard line and is the teams goal line back. That doesnt mean hes good. 

(07-31-2017, 09:56 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I would love if he did, because that means the team is likely scoring a lot, but I would be shocked if he gets more TDs than Mixon.  

With Gio defying odds, that might take away touches we assumed Mixon would get.

Hill- 60 %
Bernard - 30%
Mixon - 20%

Is it just me or does Lapham looks like he just farted and Dan Hoard hasn't smelled it yet in those training camp videos.

(07-31-2017, 11:21 AM)ochocincos Wrote: However, when looking at stats from last year, it should be pointed out that many people considered LeGarrette Blount to have a great season....he had 3.9 YPC. He just had a lot of attempts and TDs to compensate, so people didn't focus as much on YPC for him compared to others.

Some other RBs with sub-4.0 YPC last year:
Todd Gurley (3.2)
Frank Gore (3.9)
Melvin Gordon (3.9)
Jonathan Stewart (3.8)
Matt Forte (3.7)

I don't think many thought Blount had a great season...other than being on the winning team.  He wasn't brought back by said team, either.

However, I like your "Sub-4 Club" reference for a different reason.  This is a perfect illustration of how it is so much more than just a RB.  Those RBs all had tremendous struggles on offense with either a lack of weapons,  poor QB play, or both.  Defenses weren't threatened by either of those teams over the top, and this was the case in Cincinnati as well.  Even while AJ was going off on pace to his best season ever (which reinforces the point, even when he isn't open, he is open), there was not enough of a threat elsewhere to make teams drop safeties off the LOS.  

This picture for Cincinnati will look much better this year.  

(07-31-2017, 09:27 PM)jeremydc Wrote: With Gio defying odds, that might take away touches we assumed Mixon would get.

Hill- 60 %
Bernard - 30%
Mixon - 20%

I would say he has a 50/50 chance of having more touches....but there is only a 10% chance of that.  

(07-31-2017, 07:25 PM)Whatever Wrote: To be fair, Hill was only 21st amongst RB's in yards from scrimmage in 2016.  He's an average starter as a runner, but offers next to nothing as a receiver, which makes him a below average starter/quality backup RB. There are some teams he could start for, but not a lot of contenders.

Beyond all that, my main issue with him is that he is limited as an outside runner and as a receiver, which limits what we can do with him in the game from a playcalling standpoint and makes the opposing defense's job a lot easier.  It just makes more sense to me that the back that's getting the majority of the snaps be able to run a majority of the plays.  

Right. He's not "terrible" as some claim him to be, but there's room for improvement. And it makes sense for those hopeful on Hill to think he could get back to his rookie season form since he's done it before. I'm personally in the camp of "I like the guy as a short yardage or goal line RB, but he shouldn't be the starter".

(08-01-2017, 09:08 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Right. He's not "terrible" as some claim him to be, but there's room for improvement. And it makes sense for those hopeful on Hill to think he could get back to his rookie season form since he's done it before. I'm personally in the camp of "I like the guy as a short yardage or goal line RB, but he shouldn't be the starter".

I got to watch Joe Mixon and Hill yesterday. Hill is a good back, not close to terrible. But Mixon looked faster, stronger, more balanced and like a stud. I think a healthy Mixon beats out Hill and Bernard, not because they are bad backs, but because Mixon will be special as long as he stays healthy. James Brooks stated yesterday Mixon is playing slow due to not feeling comfortable with the play book, that is great news as he looked like the quickest and fastest running back on the field.

I don't understand how people think that guys don't want Hill to succeed.  Of course we all want him to succeed, hell, I was so upset initially with the Mixon pick, I wanted Jeremy to have a career year and force the rook to ride the pine.  No one WANTS Hill to be a turd, he just has been on his own.  I don't see the issue in pointing that out.  I'm pulling for him, like I do all Bengals, but he's just not been all that great lately. I guess the main problem is that he had a great rookie year, then followed it with two rather average years.

(08-01-2017, 09:48 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: I don't understand how people think that guys don't want Hill to succeed.  Of course we all want him to succeed, hell, I was so upset initially with the Mixon pick, I wanted Jeremy to have a career year and force the rook to ride the pine.  No one WANTS Hill to be a turd, he just has been on his own.  I don't see the issue in pointing that out.  I'm pulling for him, like I do all Bengals, but he's just not been all that great lately. I guess the main problem is that he had a great rookie year, then followed it with two rather average years.

Post of the day! Well so far anyway[emoji6]. I'll rep ya later. I think it's more the perception of hill being bad or mixon being better and why wait to make the change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-01-2017, 10:08 AM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Post of the day!  Well so far anyway[emoji6].  I'll rep ya later.  I think it's more the perception of hill being bad or mixon being better and why wait to make the change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because you ride the escalating egos from competition all the way to the Championship!!!

Look at the places where the Bengals have significant competition for playing time:  RB, TE, WR, Safety, CB, LB (at least nickel packages), DE, DT.

I love it!!!  

(08-01-2017, 10:08 AM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Post of the day!  Well so far anyway[emoji6].  I'll rep ya later.  I think it's more the perception of hill being bad or mixon being better and why wait to make the change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, exactly.  We drafted the kid to be a stud, and took heat for it......silence the critics if he's the real deal.  Give him the ball.

(08-01-2017, 10:18 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Because you ride the escalating egos from competition all the way to the Championship!!!

Look at the places where the Bengals have significant competition for playing time:  RB, TE, WR, Safety, CB, LB (at least nickel packages), DE, DT.

I love it!!!  

Good point.  Lotta competition this year, the question is......will the staff allow it, or will they roll with a vet just 'cause....like they have in the past.

Ummm,  watch Mixon BLOW past our secondary....

pic.twitter.com/XuwM9YgRpA

(08-01-2017, 10:18 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Because you ride the escalating egos from competition all the way to the Championship!!!

Look at the places where the Bengals have significant competition for playing time:  RB, TE, WR, Safety, CB, LB (at least nickel packages), DE, DT.

I love it!!!  

Yeah, I get that. Hill has looked lackluster the past 2 years. Hence the drafting of mixon. I don't root against hill, I root for improvement in the team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-01-2017, 08:22 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I don't think many thought Blount had a great season...other than being on the winning team.  He wasn't brought back by said team, either.

However, I like your "Sub-4 Club" reference for a different reason.  This is a perfect illustration of how it is so much more than just a RB.  Those RBs all had tremendous struggles on offense with either a lack of weapons,  poor QB play, or both.  Defenses weren't threatened by either of those teams over the top, and this was the case in Cincinnati as well.  Even while AJ was going off on pace to his best season ever (which reinforces the point, even when he isn't open, he is open), there was not enough of a threat elsewhere to make teams drop safeties off the LOS.  

This picture for Cincinnati will look much better this year.  

Some of those RBs are also just old (for a RB).

Frank Gore: 34-years-old
Jonathan Stewart: 30-years-old
Matt Forte: 31-years-old

Really I think the only guy on that list who can have some claim that surrounding talent as his reason is Todd Gurley. Even then I wonder how much it is that. Steven Jackson was also surrounded by shitty Rams team after shitty Rams team yet only had under 4.1 YPC once in 9 years with the Rams.

Adrian Peterson had Christian Ponder and Percy Harvin as his QB/WR1 when he ran for 2k.
Chris Johnson had Vince Young/Kerry Collins and Kenny Britt as his QBs/WR1 when he ran for 2k.

Good RBs find a way. Hill has sucked 66.7% of his career, Gio sucked last year, and I really don't want to cheer for Mixon. Hence my frustration.

why lap always smirking like a child

(08-01-2017, 09:48 AM)Wyche Wrote: I guess the main problem is that he had a great rookie year, then followed it with two rather average years.

Indeed.  Following that rookie year there were more than a few people who were ready to make the guy the center of the franchise to the point where players and coaches may have to be altered in order to ensure Hill running the ball is the foremost feature of the Bengals.  I'd wager Mixon will be good, but the Mixon hype just reminds me of how absurdly smug we were that Hill was going to run over the entire NFL at one point so it is amusing that part of making sure the 2017 Bengals are a success is to do anything to keep Hill from getting the ball.

Circle of life, and all that.