Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Ron Dayne to get bigger workload? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter P Boy
- Start date
The only postion I see you taking in this and other threads, is that SSOG MIGHT be wrong.It has been my position all week that given the information we have it is impossible to make an accurate prediction. He can guess and he has a chance of being right, but guessing is not the same as predicting.Until we see Mike and Ron run some more noone, not even shannahan apparently, knows what is going to happen.I agree with chedha. Cracks me up how some people are quite happy to rip SSOG a new one, but don't have the coconuts themselves to try and make sense of the Denver RB situation.Well actually I guess they are making a mini prediction. Seems to me that if they're in disagreement with SSOG, then they must be saying Anderson will NOT be the Denver RB.
SSOG claims to know what is going on with the Denver running situation when even the head coach has admitted he is not sure. That's not coconuts.. thats just guessing.
I agree with chedha. Cracks me up how some people are quite happy to rip SSOG a new one, but don't have the coconuts themselves to try and make sense of the Denver RB situation.
Well actually I guess they are making a mini prediction. Seems to me that if they're in disagreement with SSOG, then they must be saying Anderson will NOT be the Denver RB.
again.I've been pushing since week 1 in the preseason that Dayne has been the best looking RB in the fold. Try pushing THAT position without ridicule.Saying that Dayne is the best looking RB in the fold is one thing, saying that Dayne will be a top 10 guy, or he'll be a stud this year is a different storyI agree with chedha. Cracks me up how some people are quite happy to rip SSOG a new one, but don't have the coconuts themselves to try and make sense of the Denver RB situation.
Well actually I guess they are making a mini prediction. Seems to me that if they're in disagreement with SSOG, then they must be saying Anderson will NOT be the Denver RB.
Well i didn't mean fear in terms of being scared, I meant fear in terms of "losing board cred" or.. well you know what i mean..
I'll be as protective of my postion as anyone else here, but that's because the numbers & history back my position up. But I'll recognize an alternative position that is also backed by some history & numbers.
That's the difference. Unless he's a lurking Shanahan, there's no way he can state with absolute assurance the course of future events - especially thye DEN RB position & the way its shaking out this year. It's the difference between convincing others that your position is the right one and insisting that their position is the wrong one. One leads to healthy debate, the other leads to pissing contests.
Big Score
Footballguy
Thank You Pony Boy, for stepping up to the plate. You will hear no ridicule from me on your postion of lard butt...er...I mean Dayne being the guy.Just kidding you on the lard butt thing PB.
If Anderson can't get over his rib cartlidge injury, I think Dayne is far and away the next most likely back in Denver.
Paper Lions
Footballguy
I never said he was wrong. Just that he is guessing. He may very well be right in the end but any guess has a chance of being right.Let me ask you this. If Skelator is not sure of the RB situation in Denver, how can anyone else be?In other words, your postion is that you have no position....because there is not enough information for you to have a position......except that there is enough information for you to have the position that SSOG's postion is wrong.I get it!
Paper Lions
Footballguy
Paper Lions
Footballguy
Of course you are. I forgot who I was talking to. My bad.
SSOG
Moderator
Who says I'm stating anything with absolute assurance? It's the future. I can't predict the future. I don't possess any superhuman powers that the rest of you don't.There's a difference between saying something with conviction and saying something with absolute assurance.
Besides, I haven't seen history and numbers backing the other position. Where's Shanny's history of giving an RB returning from injury fewer carries in the second week back than in the first week back? Where's the history of Shanahan changing RBs based on 8 carries? I understand that the other side has reasons and valid points, and I've weighed in on why those reasons and valid points don't shake my conviction that Anderson is "the guy".
The entire future is cloudy. That's why it's predicting. Again, I have yet to see a valid explanation for why it's okay to predict the NYJ rushing situation, but not Denver's. I don't see why it's okay to predict that Rudi Johnson's YPC will drop this season, but not that Dayne won't beat out Anderson. Please tell me where the line is drawn where I'm not allowed to make predictions anymore.And I didn't say that Ashley Lelie is the biggest deep threat in the game. K.C. Joyner is. And I daresay he's done a little bit more research on the subject than you have.
Again, ALL THE FUTURE OF THE NFL IS CLOUDY. Who knew that Culpepper would have 10 turnovers by week 2? I mean, you could always say that it's impossible to make an accurate prediction. And that's the biggest cop-out in the history of fantasy football. You don't get on FBGs case because it's impossible to make an accurate prediction. Why are you getting on mine? You know, last offseason it was impossible to make an accurate prediction for Kevan Barlow. And this season it was impossible to make an accurate prediction about Fast Willie Parker, or Trent Dilfer, or Daunte Culpepper. And if that's so important to you, why are you frequenting a site dedicated to making predictions?And Shanahan never admitted he wasn't sure how Denver's situation was going to shake out. He said Anderson is the starter. He said Bell is the backup as long as he's healthy enough. He says he doesn't know how the carries will be distributed, because he doesn't know what's going to happen during the course of the game. But he's committed to Anderson/Bell/Dayne in that order. Seems pretty certain to me.
I love how everyone tells me I'm just guessing. That's the biggest cop-out in the history of fantasy football. I guess, if I'm right, it was all just one big lucky guess, right? Just like it was a lucky guess when I called Anderson to win the starting job, right? And when I started touting Dayne back in August, that was all a lucky guess, too, right? Well then heck, you might want to start listening to my guesses, because it seems I've been pretty lucky so far with them.
Given the information we have, it's impossible to predict that Manning is the #1 QB in fantasy football. After all, I just looked over all the press releases, and there isn't a single one that says he won't be injured at all this season. Whatever shall we do? I know, how about we just don't make predictions for Peyton Manning.
Apparently. Back it up with stats like historically he is the #1 threat to gain exactly 36 yards and blame his poor performances on the 3-4 defense.
Ok, now I am being mean, but seriously go back and read his posts they are kinda funny and kinda scary. Ever see "The Fan"? I wonder if Anderson needs to be warned about this guy.
SSOG
Moderator
Shanahan says Anderson is the starter. Shanahan says Bell is the primary backup and change of pace guy. How is Shanahan not sure about the RB situation in Denver? Please, explain this to me again? Shanahan isn't sure how the carries will shake out, but Vermeil has said he isn't sure how the carries will shake out in KC, too, and that doesn't stop people from predicting Holmes and Johnson. And Billick keeps talking about getting Taylor involved and then he doesn't do it, but that doesn't stop people from predicting J.Lew.And again, why is this a guess and not a prediction? Please, tell me what the difference is? I assure you, I didn't just throw darts at a dartboard here. So please, please, please, what on earth makes this a guess and not a prediction? Other than the fact that if you call this a guess enough times, you can tell me I was just lucky if I get it right, whereas if you acknowledge it's a prediction, then that means that maybe I actually was on to something when I called it.I never said he was wrong. Just that he is guessing. He may very well be right in the end but any guess has a chance of being right.Let me ask you this. If Skelator is not sure of the RB situation in Denver, how can anyone else be?In other words, your postion is that you have no position....because there is not enough information for you to have a position......except that there is enough information for you to have the position that SSOG's postion is wrong.I get it!
Paper Lions
Footballguy
LinkyI agree with chedha. Cracks me up how some people are quite happy to rip SSOG a new one, but don't have the coconuts themselves to try and make sense of the Denver RB situation.Well actually I guess they are making a mini prediction. Seems to me that if they're in disagreement with SSOG, then they must be saying Anderson will NOT be the Denver RB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paper Lions
Footballguy
Apparently. Back it up with stats like historically he is the #1 threat to gain exactly 36 yards and blame his poor performances on the 3-4 defense.
SSOG
Moderator
Sure, if you had overwhelming evidence supporting your claim, then yes.
See, the funny thing here is that I predicted a bad rushing day for Denver a WEEK before they played San Diego, based on the 3-4 defense. So it's not like I was proven wrong and I'm now scrambling to find an excuse. I guess that was just a lucky guess, too, right?Apparently. Back it up with stats like historically he is the #1 threat to gain exactly 36 yards and blame his poor performances on the 3-4 defense.
Ok, now I am being mean, but seriously go back and read his posts they are kinda funny and kinda scary. Ever see "The Fan"? I wonder if Anderson needs to be warned about this guy.
There are intangibles to consider that the stats alone wont tell you. That is the difference between a stats freak and someone who understands football.
Predicting LT's year is MUCH different than predicting Andersons. Anderson has a lot more variables to consider and until those issues are made clear you closer to guessing than making an informed decision.
And then he went and moved Dayne up to #2 on the depth chart. Yeah, real clear.
Paper Lions
Footballguy
Clouds below:
May not be what people want to see happen in Denver, which has been a bona fide stud RB producing system for years now, but could be how it pans out.A guess is an opinion based on little or no evidence. A prediction is a statement based on observation, experience or scientific reason. I would say your predicting Anderson will be the starter, based on your observation of Shannahan stating that Anderson will in fact be the starter.Shanahan says Anderson is the starter. Shanahan says Bell is the primary backup and change of pace guy. How is Shanahan not sure about the RB situation in Denver? Please, explain this to me again? Shanahan isn't sure how the carries will shake out, but Vermeil has said he isn't sure how the carries will shake out in KC, too, and that doesn't stop people from predicting Holmes and Johnson. And Billick keeps talking about getting Taylor involved and then he doesn't do it, but that doesn't stop people from predicting J.Lew.And again, why is this a guess and not a prediction? Please, tell me what the difference is? I assure you, I didn't just throw darts at a dartboard here. So please, please, please, what on earth makes this a guess and not a prediction? Other than the fact that if you call this a guess enough times, you can tell me I was just lucky if I get it right, whereas if you acknowledge it's a prediction, then that means that maybe I actually was on to something when I called it.I never said he was wrong. Just that he is guessing. He may very well be right in the end but any guess has a chance of being right.Let me ask you this. If Skelator is not sure of the RB situation in Denver, how can anyone else be?In other words, your postion is that you have no position....because there is not enough information for you to have a position......except that there is enough information for you to have the position that SSOG's postion is wrong.I get it!
Why does there have to be a guy?Why is it not OK to look at the fog and say, "Damn, that's some fog"?
Why is it OK to look at the fog and say, "It sure is sunny around Mike Anderson"?
Why is it not OK to look at the available backs in Denver and say, "None are good enough to be the man"?
Why can't the 2005 Broncos be similar to the 2001 Broncos?
I'll go 30% to Anderson, 25% to Dayne, 3% to Bell, 2% to Johnson, and 40% to no man.
If healthy Anderson will be the starter this week. I have no problem with that prediction.When he says that Anderson will be a "stud" RB this year, that is where he is guessing. There are too many unknowns to predict that, health concerns and competittion for the job being the biggest two.
As I said before, if Shanny admits to not knowing what they are going to do, how can any assertion about what they will do be anything other than a guess?
That's because it doesn't matter how the carries shake out in KC, whether you have Holmes or Johnson, you will get nice production. In Den., the running game is not quite as productive as KC, so if you don't have the starter your more than likely not going to see very good production at all.. Well everyone is second guessing themselves with who the starter will be, so people would prefer to avoid the situation
I have no idea who the man will be or if there will even be a man. For all I know it may be Kyle Johnson. He has more fantasy points than anyone else in the backfield to date! What I do know is that Mike Anderson was basically free/late round pick so it is all upside for me and most and he is the most likely featured back. Can't beat that.
Judge Smails
Footballguy
OK, I'm officially bored by this thread...adios..
BigFishBigTeeth
Footballguy
I think it already did come outWow. Nice post. when's your book coming out??
(i.e. it's posted here)
SSOG
Moderator
Oh, and Daunte Culpepper didn't have any variables surrounding him during the preseason? I suppose the loss of his offensive coordinator, his all-pro center, and the best WR in the NFL don't count as variables. And that's why everyone was "predicting" how his season would turn out, rather than just guessing.And how about those people picking up Ricky Williams, "predicting" he'll win the starting job. Why aren't you getting on all of their cases for guessing? I mean, are there no variables involved there?
Predicting LT's year is MUCH different than predicting Andersons. Anderson has a lot more variables to consider and until those issues are made clear you closer to guessing than making an informed decision.
Even LT himself. LT caught a pass in every single game of his career, except for the last two. Don't you think that counts as a "variable"?
All of this "guess" crap is, quite simply,
. Unless someone has a crystal ball, ALL NFL predictions are merely educated guesses.Shanahan never moved Dayne up to #2 on the depth chart. Look it up for yourself. See Ron Dayne? He's the third name under RB. That's because he's third on the depth chart.You see, we're speculating when we say that Dayne will be the one to take over if Anderson goes down. There has been no concrete evidence from the organization that that is the case. And yet, somehow, for SOME CRAZY REASON... if we look at the #3 RB and say he's going to be the #2, that's "PREDICTING", but if we look at the #1 RB and say that he's the #1, that's "GUESSING". Please explain that one to me. Pretty please.
Hey look, there's a quote of Shanahan saying he doesn't know how the carries will be distributed against Kansas City at a time where he doesn't know the extent of Bell's injury, he doesn't know how Mike Anderson reacted to his return to action, he doesn't know that they're about to resign Bell, and he hasn't spent any time gameplanning for next week yet.Oh yes, coaches should know during their postgame conference what, exactly, their gameplan will be for the next game.
I can't for the life of me tell if this is supposed to be a joke or not. I think it's supposed to be a joke, but just in case you're serious... the reason this season isn't like 2001 is because Terrell Davis isn't trying to make a comeback from a career-ending injury.
Shanahan admitted that Anderson is the starter. The starter in Denver is traditionally a stud. I can see where it's just guesswork when I say that Anderson is a stud.Read the interview again. Shanahan says he doesn't know what his gameplan for KC will be. Hmmm... perhaps he doesn't know what he's doing against KC because the question was asked at the postgame conference after SD? Naaahhh... that'd make too much sense. So let's ignore the fact that Shanahan explicitly spells out the depth chart earlier in the interview and focus on the fact that he doesn't know how the carries will break down a full day before he even begins planning the game.
My God... only in Denver can a poster look at the depth chart, see who is #1, and say "That RB is #1!", and then get roundly yelled at for just "guessing". If anything, saying that the guy listed at #1 is #1 is simply stating the obvious. It's the people who say that the guy listed at #1 *isn't* #1 that are guessing.
If I looked at Green Bay's depth chart and said that Ahman Green was #1, would you say I was guessing there, too?
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
OK SSOG...it is time to come clean. It is very obvious to me that you are in fact Mike Shanahan and your EGO has sadly evolved to the point that you spend countless hours posting on all the Fantasy Football Forums just to support your claim of being some sort of genius!Fess up! We know it is true!
Again, I am not saying you are guessing when you say that Mike Anderson is the starter in week 3. You are guessing when you proclaim that he will be a stud RB this year. Yes, history shows that the starter of the majority of the games in Denver is a stud RB. There are too many variables and uncertainties to declare that Anderson will be the starter for the majority of the games in Denver and in the two games he has played in he has yet to put up good numbers or score a TD.Stating he is number one this week is obvious. Stating he is a stud RB this year is wild speculation. Rely on the past all you want, but there are too many issues in the present to assume that history will repeat itself. Injury and compettition being the 2 major ones.
Big Score
Footballguy
Jeff Legwold, of the Rocky Mountain News, reports Denver Broncos RB Mike Anderson (ribs) practiced again Thursday, Sept. 22, and is expected to start during Week 3.
Also;
COVERING HIMSELF: Running back Mike Anderson can't wait to ditch the flak jacket he has been wearing to protect his injured rib cage.
The device, he believes, contributed to his first-quarter fumble against the Chargers because he had grown accustomed to tucking the ball close to his body and not having a barrier preventing that.
"I don't plan on wearing it (Monday)," Anderson said, though he quickly changed his mind. "No, I take it back. I'm wearing it. But I prefer not to. I don't want to get set back any longer or have it hinder me longer than it already has."
Anderson, who can breathe normally but still has issues with contact on the injured area, hoped to be cleared to ditch the extra padding by the Oct. 2 game in Jacksonville.
"I can't wait until that day," he said.
Also;
COVERING HIMSELF: Running back Mike Anderson can't wait to ditch the flak jacket he has been wearing to protect his injured rib cage.
The device, he believes, contributed to his first-quarter fumble against the Chargers because he had grown accustomed to tucking the ball close to his body and not having a barrier preventing that.
"I don't plan on wearing it (Monday)," Anderson said, though he quickly changed his mind. "No, I take it back. I'm wearing it. But I prefer not to. I don't want to get set back any longer or have it hinder me longer than it already has."
Anderson, who can breathe normally but still has issues with contact on the injured area, hoped to be cleared to ditch the extra padding by the Oct. 2 game in Jacksonville.
"I can't wait until that day," he said.
SSOG
Moderator
Okay... I'm predicting that the guy who is #1 on the depth chart will remain the starter all season, then, barring catastrophic injury. I still don't see how this qualifies as "guessing".You all talk about how Dayne (the #3 on the depth chart) will be Anderson's backup when he goes down (in other words, that he's really the #2), and that's somehow a "prediction". You all predict that Dayne (the #3 on the depth chart) will be the #1 at some point during the season, and again, that's a "prediction". Meanwhile, I say that Mike Anderson, who is currently #1, will remain #1, and that's just a guess? That's less supported by the facts than all of this stuff that you're touting? Give me a break.
If I pointed you to a team's depth chart, and I said "predict who will finish the season #1", who would you predict? The guy first on the depth chart, or the guy third on the depth chart? Who do you think is more likely to finish the season as a starter?
The only situation where I think it's "predicting" to say that the #2 will become the #1 is Chicago, and that's because they drafted a guy in the top 5, and he would already be the #1 if he hadn't held out of camp.
On most teams I would agree with you. I think that you are ignoring a number of factors involving the Denver situation.
The GM said it. The Head Coach said it. We are just pointing it out to you.
Don't go putting words into my mouth. I never said Dayne will be #1. I only said that there is enough of a chance given the current situation that calling Anderson a Stud is premature.
For some teams that is easy. In SD, it is clear who the starter will be week 14 assuming he does not get injured. There is no one else on the team close to LT's talent.For some teams it isn't so easy. Ronnie Brown is the #1RB right now. Who will it be week 14? Holmes is the #1 right now, who will it be week 14? Some situations are much clearer than others, Denver is a team where this year you can not assume the guy starting this week will be the starter down the road. He is banged up and there are backs behind him of comprable talent just waiting for a shot. I am not saying Dayne is the man. I am saying that if you think you know who the man in Denver is and who will remain the man all season long you are ignoring the facts presented to you.
Been reading this thread from the beginning. Sorry I haven't thrown my 
in yet, SSOG. Anyway, I don't see why everyone is jumping down SSOG's throat for having an opinion/prediction/whatever about how the Denver backfield will sort itself out. Don't like it, fine. State your opinion / prediction clearly and concisely. Then in 14 weeks we'll take a look back and see who was more "correct."For me, I'm on Mike's side. Finally got to watch the GOTW replay of the Broncs and Chargers. Thought Mike looked fantastic all the way late into the 3rd quarter. Which is about the time I'd expect him to slow down, or start really feeling the effects of the torn/strain cartiledge. Also, thought Dayne looked very pedestrian. Ran hard, but looked about the same to me. Does a good job of getting low, hitting holes hard (they were HUGE on his first few runs), but he just doesn't have the leg drive that you'd want when running inside. His legs just look to lock up at first "high" contact, he doesn't even look to be trying to push/gut out a few more yards. That won't make him a starter...ever.Everyone makes a huge deal out of 4th and 1. You guys realize that the 4th and 1 was there because Dayne could NOT get 2 yards on the 3rd and 2 off left tackle run right before that...right??*hears crickets chirping* Yeah, I thought so.
in yet, SSOG. Anyway, I don't see why everyone is jumping down SSOG's throat for having an opinion/prediction/whatever about how the Denver backfield will sort itself out. Don't like it, fine. State your opinion / prediction clearly and concisely. Then in 14 weeks we'll take a look back and see who was more "correct."For me, I'm on Mike's side. Finally got to watch the GOTW replay of the Broncs and Chargers. Thought Mike looked fantastic all the way late into the 3rd quarter. Which is about the time I'd expect him to slow down, or start really feeling the effects of the torn/strain cartiledge. Also, thought Dayne looked very pedestrian. Ran hard, but looked about the same to me. Does a good job of getting low, hitting holes hard (they were HUGE on his first few runs), but he just doesn't have the leg drive that you'd want when running inside. His legs just look to lock up at first "high" contact, he doesn't even look to be trying to push/gut out a few more yards. That won't make him a starter...ever.Everyone makes a huge deal out of 4th and 1. You guys realize that the 4th and 1 was there because Dayne could NOT get 2 yards on the 3rd and 2 off left tackle run right before that...right??*hears crickets chirping* Yeah, I thought so.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the manner in which he presents himself invites opposing opinions.Also, he said that Ashley Leile is the biggest deep threat in the NFL. I know he was citing someone else but you can't bring that kinda stuff around here and expect not to hear about it.Been reading this thread from the beginning. Sorry I haven't thrown my
SSOG
Moderator
What factors am I ignoring? Mike Shanahan has called the guy the starter, and given him the starter's workload of carries. Shanny obviously still trusts him (3rd-and-2 call). Did Dayne outperform him for maybe 3 minutes at the end of the game? Yes. Did Anderson outperform Dayne for the 8 weeks leading up to those 3 minutes? By a large margin. Do I think those 3 minutes outweigh those 8 weeks? Are you CRAZY?Again, Anderson is listed at #1. His coach has endorsed him at #1. His coach has yet to say a negative thing about his play as #1. Why am I "guessing" when I say that he's going to remain #1?
Actually, no, the GM never said it. He said you'd see both Dayne and Bell if Anderson went down, and said that Dayne was potentially the type of back that could wear a defense down with 20 carries, which they liked. And right before he said any of this, HE SAID MIKE ANDERSON WAS THE #1 GUY. So you're high on Dayne because Sundquist likes him, and low on Anderson despite the fact that Sundquist likes him more?And Mike Shanahan said it? Please, please find this quote for me. All I see is this:
I see where Shanahan said Anderson was #1. I see where Shanahan said Bell was #2. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. But thanks for "pointing it out" to me.
And there's enough of a chance that Martin gets injured that calling him a top 20 back is premature. And there's enough of a chance of Johnson getting more carries that calling Holmes a stud is premature. Welcome to the world of predicting. The only time that it's NOT premature to predict who the top 10 backs for the season will be is around week 17. I don't see you getting on anyone else's case for making predictions, though. Or, as you call them, "guesses".
Anderson can lose his job with a season ending injury. I recognize that risk, yes. That is the same risk that faces every single starting RB in the entire NFL. As to losing it to a guy who is just as talented behind him... Mike Anderson has been #1 on the depth chart since last January. There have been no blips on the radar. He has never been passed. Bell and Dayne had 8 weeks to try to outplay him in the offseason, training camps, and preseason... and the result? Gary Kubiak comes out and says that Mike Anderson had the best TC/Preseason he has ever seen any player have, and Kubiak has coached Elway, Davis, Young, Rice, etc., etc., etc. Mike Shanahan and Ted Sundquist have never once wavered in their support of Anderson as the #1 back. Mike Anderson is banged up, yes, but he was even MORE banged up last week, and he still got 15 carries. And every week he's a little bit less banged up.Again, I just don't understand why it's such a stretch of the imagination to assume that the guy who is #1 on the depth chart EARNED that position through 8 solid weeks of spectacular play, and won't LOSE that position based on 3 minutes of solid play by his backup. Why do you assume that Dayne will outperform Anderson for the rest of the year? He hasn't yet.
jafo
Out of Mind
Those 2 cents aren't worth very much if you think Dayne looked very pedestrian. He averaged 5.5 YPC. If Dayne was pedestrian, how would you describe Anderson? (who managed just 5 more yards with almost twice the carries).Edited to add, do I read this correctly, Mike looked "fantastic all the way late into the 3rd quarter" ?? I guess by fantastic you mean 3.2YPC & a Fumble with no scores.Been reading this thread from the beginning. Sorry I haven't thrown my
For me, I'm on Mike's side. Finally got to watch the GOTW replay of the Broncs and Chargers. Thought Mike looked fantastic all the way late into the 3rd quarter. Which is about the time I'd expect him to slow down, or start really feeling the effects of the torn/strain cartiledge. Also, thought Dayne looked very pedestrian. Ran hard, but looked about the same to me. Does a good job of getting low, hitting holes hard (they were HUGE on his first few runs), but he just doesn't have the leg drive that you'd want when running inside. His legs just look to lock up at first "high" contact, he doesn't even look to be trying to push/gut out a few more yards. That won't make him a starter...ever.
Everyone makes a huge deal out of 4th and 1. You guys realize that the 4th and 1 was there because Dayne could NOT get 2 yards on the 3rd and 2 off left tackle run right before that...right??
*hears crickets chirping* Yeah, I thought so.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG, we are now just repeating things we have already said.I will leave the thread with this:A) His injury risk is not equal to any other RB. He is already hurt. The nature of his injury makes him much more likely to be replaced due to injury.B) Even when he is the starter Bell will come in if at all able as a change of pace back. Bell does not fill the role that Anderson does. Dayne does. This is why Dayne is the backup to Anderson even though he is currently listed as the #3. I believe you understand this fully and are being willfully obtuse because you feel it detracts from your "prediction".C) Here is my prediction: Anderson does not finish the year in the top 5 for RB's which is my completely arbitrary qualifier for being a "stud".For the sake of clarity top 5 in fantasy points using the following scoring method:1 point per 20 yards rushing.1 point per 20 recieving.6 points per TD.-1 per fumble.Sig bet?
You're joking right? Do you think that yards per carry absolutely always = lookign good? Man, I guess someone like Sproles must be the 2nd coming of Barry Sanders! Damn, he's got 12.0 YPC!! GET HIM NOW!!!You use your stats as the be all end all...me, I'll watch football and make my decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
How? If he were likely to be replaced because of his injury, wouldn't he have been replaced when it was at its worst? Why would they replace him after he has already started recovering?
Are you kidding? I was one of the guys touting Dayne as the guy to become "The Guy" if Anderson got hurt, way back in August. I agree that I *believe* he'll be the main ballcarrier of Anderson goes down. I'm just saying that it's silly that that classifies as a "prediction", while saying the #1 is going to remain the #1 classifies as a "guess". There's a lot more support for the second viewpoint than the first.
No, no sig bet. I'll sig bet you that he's top 10 in PPG from here on out for as long as he's a starter, though. That's my completely arbitrary qualifier for being a "stud". In my mind, first round picks are all "studs", so saying only the top 5 RBs are "studs" is silly.You game? Sig bet that says Mike Anderson, from week 3 until he suffers an injury that forces him from the starting lineup, will be top 10 in PPG. And if he stays healthy but gets passed up by Dayne, I automatically lose. Up for it?
SSOG
Moderator
What? What are you talking about? Was Peyton Manning not top 10 in points per game last season because he didn't finish in the top 10 on week 17?I didn't say that he would be a top 10 scorer every single week. If I was saying he'd be top 10 every week, why on earth would I have said "points per game"? Points per game means TOTAL POINTS divided by TOTAL GAMES. So he'll be top 10 in PPG over the span starting this week and ending either at the end of the season, or when he loses his starting job due to injury.
Do you need me to spell this out for you in crayon?
Alright, here is the sig bet. First, we establish the time frame. The time frame BEGINS this week, and ENDS either at the end of the season, or when Mike Anderson loses his starting job due to injury. At the end of the time frame, the sig bet is that Mike Anderson will be among the top 10 scorers at the RB position over that span. Or, in other words, there will not be 10 RBs who scored more points over the span beginning in week 3 and ending either in week 17, or when Anderson loses his job due to injury, whichever comes first.
Is this acceptable? You've certainly got the safer side of the sig bet, since predicting ANY player for a top 10 season is certainly a risky move. Are you satisfied with this sig bet, or are you going to try to find more loopholes in the language because you're nervous that you'll lose?
Oh, I'm also going to add the stipulation that if Anderson gets lost for the season due to injury in a game where he fails to get at least 10 carries, that game is NOT included in the time span. That way, if Anderson gets injured on the very first carry of a game, his PPG numbers aren't unnaturally killed (like they were against Miami). In addition, if Denver clinches a playoff spot early, and Shanahan doesn't play his starters in some late season games (as is his wont), then those games also don't count.
Is this agreement acceptable to all parties involved?
Edit: None of that wacky 1 point for 20 rushing/1 point for 20 receiving scoring, either. This is the Footballguys forums, so we're using standard footballguys scoring. Take it or leave it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
