Pats sign Jeremy Hill

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Jeremy hill is slow and bad. Really unhappy about this one.
Don't understand this opinion. Similar to LGB, he's shown big play ability for a larger back. Unlike LGB, he can catch the ball out of the backfield and has value on passing downs.

He looked like a top tier back during the second half of his rookie year. He hasn't come close to that production since (though he's had some moments), but Bengals gonna Bengal so I'm not sure how much is his fault and how much is the fact that the Bengals are a garbage organization that have no idea what they're doing. Probably a bit of both.

Hill does have a rep for not being the hardest worker at times (I recall him getting fat after his rookie season), but that shit obviously won't fly with the Pats. If he doesn't toe the line, they'll just dump him. And my guess it's a short term contract with little guaranteed money and a lot of incentive bonuses.

I like the move. Typical low risk, high potential Pats signing.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,300
Providence, RI
Jeremy Hill is a perfectly adequate NFL running back. I expect him to provide solid, helpful production on early downs. This is a good signing that fits a need.

But he will fall well short of spectacular which means the BBtL game threads will irrationally hate him. Just like it irrationally hated Blount. The main objection to Jeremy Hill will be that he does not produce like an in his prime Adrain Peterson.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
52,607
deep inside Guido territory
Jeremy Hill is a perfectly adequate NFL running back. I expect him to provide solid, helpful production on early downs. This is a good signing that fits a need.

But he will fall well short of spectacular which means the BBtL game threads will irrationally hate him. Just like it irrationally hated Blount. The main objection to Jeremy Hill will be that he does not produce like an in his prime Adrain Peterson.
The main objection to Adrian Peterson is that he does not perform like an in his prime Jim Brown or Barry Sanders.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,300
Providence, RI
We hated Blount? I loved Blount!
I’m being over the top. Many loved Blount (deservedly so!). But in the heat of a game thread he caught an unwarranted amount of sh*t. It was never rational. But it’s also just a game thread.
I’m just saying that Hill is a prime target for a similar reaction due to being solid yet unspectacular
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,489
I like both Hill and Clayborn for the right money. Hill's numbers are underwhelming, but watching the Bengals it always felt like the issue was more terrible coaching and lineplay, as all their RBs tended to struggle.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,486
I like both Hill and Clayborn for the right money. Hill's numbers are underwhelming, but watching the Bengals it always felt like the issue was more terrible coaching and lineplay, as all their RBs tended to struggle.
I’m guessing having Tom Brady at QB instead of Dalton will open things up a little more for Hill.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,863
I’m guessing having Tom Brady at QB instead of Dalton will open things up a little more for Hill.
Did it open up things for Gillisee that I'm forgetting? Can we not pretend that every fa nobody it's going to be useful cuz Pats? I'm going to guess Hill gets as many yards as Tory Holt did as a patriot
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,486
Did it open up things for Gillisee that I'm forgetting? Can we not pretend that every fa nobody it's going to be useful cuz Pats? I'm going to guess Hill gets as many yards as Tory Holt did as a patriot
You’re right, one guy didn’t work out so that totally disproves my point. Hill isn’t a “FA nobody”. He was very good 3 years ago and scored 29 TDs in his first 3 seasons. He hasn’t been very good lately but he’s battled injuries and a poor OL. He could be anywhere from a camp cut to a valuable contributor. We have no idea but smart football people decided to take a shot on him.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,863
You’re right, one guy didn’t work out so that totally disproves my point. Hill isn’t a “FA nobody”. He was very good 3 years ago and scored 29 TDs in his first 3 seasons. He hasn’t been very good lately but he’s battled injuries and a poor OL. He could be anywhere from a camp cut to a valuable contributor. We have no idea but smart football people decided to take a shot on him.
At his best he is JGE or a poor man's Blount.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,486
At his best he is JGE or a poor man's Blount.
He wasn’t signed to be a starter. I don’t really see what the issue is here, signing a guy on a low risk one year deal who may be able to improve where Gillislee was deficient last year.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,863
He wasn’t signed to be a starter. I don’t really see what the issue is here, signing a guy on a low risk one year deal who may be able to improve where Gillislee was deficient last year.
He is a wasted roster space for a one down player. I'd rather they take a flyer on pretty much anyone available that is either faster or stronger and can contribute on ST. Hill is a classic tweener and not in a good way.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,508
Hingham, MA
He is a wasted roster space for a one down player. I'd rather they take a flyer on pretty much anyone available that is either faster or stronger and can contribute on ST. Hill is a classic tweener and not in a good way.
Wasted space on a 90 man roster?
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
15,571
Pittsburgh, PA
Jeremy Hill is a perfectly adequate NFL running back. I expect him to provide solid, helpful production on early downs. This is a good signing that fits a need.

But he will fall well short of spectacular which means the BBtL game threads will irrationally hate him. Just like it irrationally hated Blount. The main objection to Jeremy Hill will be that he does not produce like an in his prime Adrain Peterson.
I assume your crystal ball also forecasts that water is wet and the pope may be Catholic, huh?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I’m surprised by the passion this move has generated. He’s Burkhead’s backup. Ideally, you’d find someone for that role who could contribute on special teams, but guys like that don’t exactly grow on trees, and BB probably didn’t want to be locked into drafting a RB in the middle rounds.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,486
I’m surprised by the passion this move has generated. He’s Burkhead’s backup. Ideally, you’d find someone for that role who could contribute on special teams, but guys like that don’t exactly grow on trees, and BB probably didn’t want to be locked into drafting a RB in the middle rounds.
That’s basically where I am. If things go well, I’m expecting like 600-800 yards and 8-10 TDs. Or, he might get cut in camp. No idea. But I’m moderately intrigued by this move. He was really good his first year. Last 3 have been bad so we’ll find out soon enough if he has anything left.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,782
La Mancha.
I’m surprised by the passion this move has generated. He’s Burkhead’s backup. Ideally, you’d find someone for that role who could contribute on special teams, but guys like that don’t exactly grow on trees, and BB probably didn’t want to be locked into drafting a RB in the middle rounds.
Just thinking out loud here, but is this only now the case because other teams are following the NEP's example and realizing that is a great way to help optimize roster management?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Just thinking out loud here, but is this only now the case because other teams are following the NEP's example and realizing that is a great way to help optimize roster management?
This is one of the many things B.B. does exceptionally well, but its not a contrarian strategy; it’s superior execution.

The math is simple — with 46-47 active players, and assuming you use offensive and defensive starters sparingly on special teams, you can only exempt a handful of bench players from special-teams duties. A bench player who burns one of those “exemptions” is therefore less valuable than one who doesn’t. Everyone understands this, but B.B. manages that part of the roster better than anyone else.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
37,837
Melrose, MA
I’m surprised by the passion this move has generated. He’s Burkhead’s backup. Ideally, you’d find someone for that role who could contribute on special teams, but guys like that don’t exactly grow on trees, and BB probably didn’t want to be locked into drafting a RB in the middle rounds.
I think some of the opposition is just that he's not the typical guy the Pats go for. Awful 3 cone and shuttle times.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
I like both Hill and Clayborn for the right money. Hill's numbers are underwhelming, but watching the Bengals it always felt like the issue was more terrible coaching and lineplay, as all their RBs tended to struggle.
I wonder if there's something specific the Patriots coaches are looking at with respect to the Bengals line/coaching/etc with Burkhead and now Hill that leads to projections of improved performance.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
1,993
I wonder if there's something specific the Patriots coaches are looking at with respect to the Bengals line/coaching/etc with Burkhead and now Hill that leads to projections of improved performance.
Burkhead was just badly underused as a plus athlete who made the most of the chances he got. Hill is not a plus athlete and has averaged 3.2 YPC against teams not named the Browns the last three years. The Bengals' line collapsed last year, but they still had Whitworth and Zeitler the two years before that. I'd be surprised if he provided much value.