Jump to content

Ok so why can't Rex be the starter from now on?


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, JC said:

Why would you use a guy with 3 seasons of statistical data and compare it to guys with close to 10 seasons and much, much more volume per season. Martin's final season was the only season he had less carries in a season than Jeremy and he was washed up at that point. 

Jeremy's numbers this year are skewed by four big runs against Cleveland x3 and the one against Denver. Great plays, but if we are relying on him to be a homerun hitter and not a workhorse, that's one big run and three nice chunk runs on 222 carries.

 

That's not how statistics work... See, if we take away "just the big runs" from Hill, you're ignoring the fact that all those other players had their stats inflated at some point by having big runs. In the case of Bettis, probably against us.

It's as silly as when Marvin says "Well, if you take away the two big runs, the defense played pretty well."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware and I don't like taking away the big plays but my point is that his statistics are skewed and Jeremy just isn't very consistent. He's on the team to pick up four yards on first down not chunk yards once every fifty carries. It's a big reason we got our ass kicked in field position until the defense turned it up a notch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

That's not how statistics work... See, if we take away "just the big runs" from Hill, you're ignoring the fact that all those other players had their stats inflated at some point by having big runs. In the case of Bettis, probably against us.

It's as silly as when Marvin says "Well, if you take away the two big runs, the defense played pretty well."

But when your "inflated" numbers still come out to 3.8 per carry, that is an indicator that something isn't working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JC said:

I'm well aware and I don't like taking away the big plays but my point is that his statistics are skewed and Jeremy just isn't very consistent. He's on the team to pick up four yards on first down not chunk yards once every fifty carries. It's a big reason we got our ass kicked in field position until the defense turned it up a notch.

Look at a different stat then. Median would be a good "average" for determining a RB's productivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sois said:

Look at a different stat then. Median would be a good "average" for determining a RB's productivity.

Median would be a much better indicator. I don't much care, I just don't think just because his YPC are equivalent to HOF running backs it means he is an effective running back. This team would be in the playoffs if he was as good as Curtis Martin/Eddie George/etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jason said:

But when your "inflated" numbers still come out to 3.8 per carry, that is an indicator that something isn't working.

You're missing the point entirely. All RB numbers are "inflated" by their big runs. If you want to take away Hill's 4 big runs every year, why not do the same for Martin, George, or Bettis?

What about the goal line runs that "deflated" Hill's numbers?

Oddly enough, since in the NFL you're looking for game changers, Hill's long runs might be more important than the 1 and 2 yard runs we fans remember. Teams always want a home-run hitter who can take it to the house. Also known as "The reason Burkehead isn't starting". Because Hill has the ability to outrun a safety for a 60-70 yard gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

You're missing the point entirely. All RB numbers are "inflated" by their big runs. If you want to take away Hill's 4 big runs every year, why not do the same for Martin, George, or Bettis?

What about the goal line runs that "deflated" Hill's numbers?

Oddly enough, since in the NFL you're looking for game changers, Hill's long runs might be more important than the 1 and 2 yard runs we fans remember. Teams always want a home-run hitter who can take it to the house. Also known as "The reason Burkehead isn't starting". Because Hill has the ability to outrun a safety for a 60-70 yard gain.

I get that.  Big runs impact all backs numbers.  But Hill's "inflated" number is still only 3.8.  Take away 1 long run against Cleveland and his average is only 3.4.

Edit:

Looking at his "deflated numbers", let's take out the 1 74 yard TD run, and assume all of the other 8 TD runs were 1 yard runs.  That leaves 757 yards on 213 carries.  That's still only 3.55 yards per run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

You're missing the point entirely. All RB numbers are "inflated" by their big runs. If you want to take away Hill's 4 big runs every year, why not do the same for Martin, George, or Bettis?

What about the goal line runs that "deflated" Hill's numbers?

Oddly enough, since in the NFL you're looking for game changers, Hill's long runs might be more important than the 1 and 2 yard runs we fans remember. Teams always want a home-run hitter who can take it to the house. Also known as "The reason Burkehead isn't starting". Because Hill has the ability to outrun a safety for a 60-70 yard gain.

Are we watching the same guy....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LostInDaJungle said:

You're missing the point entirely. All RB numbers are "inflated" by their big runs. If you want to take away Hill's 4 big runs every year, why not do the same for Martin, George, or Bettis?

What about the goal line runs that "deflated" Hill's numbers?

Oddly enough, since in the NFL you're looking for game changers, Hill's long runs might be more important than the 1 and 2 yard runs we fans remember. Teams always want a home-run hitter who can take it to the house. Also known as "The reason Burkehead isn't starting". Because Hill has the ability to outrun a safety for a 60-70 yard gain.

It's a flawed argument but running backs in the era of RBBC shouldn't be judged by their ypc anyways. A better indicator would be yards from scrimmage due to running backs receiving so little volume.

Hills chunk gains are far too infrequent for him to be considered a game changer and most of them the past two years have been against the JV squad up north. It looked like he was going to be the next Corey his rookie year but the past two years he's basically been JAG who is efficient from 5 yards out and requires a lead blocker because he doesn't break arm tackles.

I want Jeremy to be good. His rookie season was so electric and fun to watch. He's got some fire in his belly and the offense needs a skill player like that. Just seems like he's a big back in the wrong era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have to chop your stats up so as to be mutilated and unrecognizable, might as well not use them.

I don't even disagree that Hill was underwhelming and Burkehead deserves a shot, but this is an absurd example of deciding what you believe and then making the "facts" fit. It's not even worth participating in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, I don't quite see the logic behind defending Jeremy Hill. His one glaring problem was fumbles. He cleaned that up this year, but perhaps that was because he went down so often on first contact. Outside of that he has shown no burst and poor vision. He doesn't necessary accelerate at pass catching or blocking, particularly, and most of all I think his attitude sucks; he comes off as immature. For example, while I don't have evidence off-hand to prove so, I do recall in a game this year (I think the Buffalo game) where Marvin said something to him after a play. I believe it was when he ran out of bounds when he should have stayed in bounds and the camera caught him react with this "Bitch, please" expression. He runs his mouth for someone who has shown to be a very mediocre player since after his rookie season. The kid has an ego on him that dwarfs the size of anyone else's on the team - even Kirkpatrick's. On the other hand, Rex has shown excellent vision, the ability to muscle through and break tackles, pass blocks well, and runs with tremendous burst - everything you could ask for out of your back and he does it consistently better than Hill. Rex's 3-yd runs are more exciting than the majority of Hill's carries.

Jeremy Hill in a nutshell:

The green arrow is where he should have run. But as you see, Jeremy needed to cut to avoid their invisible linebacker and run straight into the DE who is shedding his block, and the DB who is coming down (red arrow). If he had the ability, he could've burst straight up between the seems or even cut to the right side of Boyd's block.

Hill.png

It might seem a little extreme, but I think I've seen enough of Jeremy Hill in 3 years - enough to think it's time to cut bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

If you have to chop your stats up so as to be mutilated and unrecognizable, might as well not use them.

I don't even disagree that Hill was underwhelming and Burkehead deserves a shot, but this is an absurd example of deciding what you believe and then making the "facts" fit. It's not even worth participating in.

You made the argument, it doesn't come out in your favor, and so you say it's mutilating his stats?  Ok.  

Let's keep all of his runs.  He was still just 3.8 per.

As JC said, I want him to be good.  I believed in him at the start of the year.  He was on my fantasy team.  Right now he's just not very good.  But he will probably get 1 more year to improve.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jason said:

You made the argument, it doesn't come out in your favor, and so you say it's mutilating his stats?  Ok.  

Let's keep all of his runs.  He was still just 3.8 per.

As JC said, I want him to be good.  I believed in him at the start of the year.  He was on my fantasy team.  Right now he's just not very good.  But he will probably get 1 more year to improve.

 

It's not my argument. Re-check the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rex definitely played well and deserves more opportunities to display his skill set. Unfortunately I seriously doubt he will be back in Cincinnati, he's a free agent can't be happy that it took 4 years to get an opportunity to show his skills. With the Bengals paying Bernard, a very similar player over $4mm and Hill still under contract I don't see them paying Rex what other teams will offer him to be a rotation back. 

As for Hill, he's flashed at times but is getting worse every year he plays. His regression is troublesome, hopefully next year he can turn it around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

I wonder if this isn't a scenario similar to Marvin Jones where the number of offensive snaps available for him, or targets/carries essentially, causes him to move on more than anything else. You know who might love him. Green Bay. 

Exactly, I think Rex is going to be a star in this league...as will McCarron. 

I know for a fact he wasn't happy sitting and watching Hill run into the back of his blockers or miss holes. People blame the oline for the running game struggles but Rex showed when he got the chance that he could have success behind this oline. Shoulda, coulda, woulda....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frustrating part is Rex could complement Gio. You don't HAVE to have a thunder and lightning style approach at running back, it would help to have the best talent there. Burkhead and Gio were far more effective backs in this offense than Hill has been.  Problem is, we have the wrong head coach to understand that. If Burkhead ends up in New England, they will know how to use him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, membengal said:

The frustrating part is Rex could complement Gio. You don't HAVE to have a thunder and lightning style approach at running back, it would help to have the best talent there. Burkhead and Gio were far more effective backs in this offense than Hill has been.  Problem is, we have the wrong head coach to understand that. If Burkhead ends up in New England, they will know how to use him...

Especially with the way the league is now. Thunder backs are becoming a thing of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to be said for Hill is this isnt a one year drop off for him. Other than scoring short yardage tds he has fallen off from his rookie year greatly. He doesnt even look like the same runner 90% of the time getting tackled easier hitting holes much slower being less decisive constantly getting hit behind line of scrimmage. How many times did Burkhead get hit behind the line yesterday? I counted once and he still made it back to los on that play. It's painfully obvious Burkhead takes the ball and goes much quicker than Hill and is much better finding creases along with being faster than Hill. Without the "starters" in on the line yesterday they looked much better as a unit. Having Burkhead doing his thing getting the ball and going constantly getting positive yards and no negative plays has to be something said for him being a part of why they looked much better due to being able to block moving forwards instead of almost like a damn near zone blocking scheme that seems would fit Hills style better.  I've been saying Burkheads style fits our blocking scheme and roster better for a while now. The giving Hill the benefit because of his performance years ago during a 2nd half of a season he had has to stop. It's obvious talent or not that he doesn't make the offense better whether that be his style not fitting in with the blocking scheme, the roster  his ability or vision doesn't matter. What does is numbers and eye test. Burkhead has produced more and looked better there should be no argument on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jrod said:

At this point, I don't quite see the logic behind defending Jeremy Hill. His one glaring problem was fumbles. He cleaned that up this year, but perhaps that was because he went down so often on first contact. Outside of that he has shown no burst and poor vision. He doesn't necessary accelerate at pass catching or blocking, particularly, and most of all I think his attitude sucks; he comes off as immature. For example, while I don't have evidence off-hand to prove so, I do recall in a game this year (I think the Buffalo game) where Marvin said something to him after a play. I believe it was when he ran out of bounds when he should have stayed in bounds and the camera caught him react with this "Bitch, please" expression. He runs his mouth for someone who has shown to be a very mediocre player since after his rookie season. The kid has an ego on him that dwarfs the size of anyone else's on the team - even Kirkpatrick's. On the other hand, Rex has shown excellent vision, the ability to muscle through and break tackles, pass blocks well, and runs with tremendous burst - everything you could ask for out of your back and he does it consistently better than Hill. Rex's 3-yd runs are more exciting than the majority of Hill's carries.

Jeremy Hill in a nutshell:

The green arrow is where he should have run. But as you see, Jeremy needed to cut to avoid their invisible linebacker and run straight into the DE who is shedding his block, and the DB who is coming down (red arrow). If he had the ability, he could've burst straight up between the seems or even cut to the right side of Boyd's block.

Hill.png

It might seem a little extreme, but I think I've seen enough of Jeremy Hill in 3 years - enough to think it's time to cut bait.

That is a frightening image. Zero vision. Elliot would score on that while yawning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

If you have to chop your stats up so as to be mutilated and unrecognizable, might as well not use them.

I don't even disagree that Hill was underwhelming and Burkehead deserves a shot, but this is an absurd example of deciding what you believe and then making the "facts" fit. It's not even worth participating in.

I don't think its mutilating the stats but rather pointing out that they are skewed due to volume compared to the other backs that were listed. Those guys probably had some big runs bringing their number up, but they also carried the ball 300-350 times a year whereas Jeremy is at 222-223. If you go back and look at his game logs, his games with a YPC of over 3.8 have declined each year. This year he did it 4 times out of his 15 games and two of them were against the worst run defense in the league.

Like someone said, he is in the wrong era. Kind of like the NBA going to small ball, the NFL is getting away from the I formation and moving towards single-back formation with three receivers. Rex may not be a home run hitter but he would probably be getting us into between down & distances leading to less predictability in the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...