Andre Hall's dynasty value... (1 Viewer)

[BigJim®]

After todays performance, he has to be the starter now doesn't he?

Today's performance? He averaged 3.77 yards per carry. He had a couple of big gainers, but on every single one he hit a big hole and ran for a bunch before he was ever touched. Basically, outside of the long screen pass, all he did all day long was take exactly what was given to him, and nothing more.

No offense, but from the start you have overvalued what Young has done and undervalued the threat of Hall. It's hard not to conclude that you are seeing this through the bias of being a Young dynasty owner. We all know there is more to a running performance than YPC. Have to do better than that especially since he was at 4.0 until some badly blocked carries when CHI knew they were running near the end.

So now I own Selvin Young in one of the many different leagues I participate in, and that totally disqualifies me from making educated decisions on him? It's not like I've been a Denver fan for about 20 years longer than I've been a Young owner or anything. I totally base all of my conclusions on Denver based entirely on who I own and not in the slightest bit on how Mike Shanahan has operated in the past.Hall is currently on the street in that exact same dynasty league. If I had wanted him, I could have him, but I chose not to add him. The reason that I'm not a Hall owner is because I don't think he's anything special, and that has NOTHING to do with me already owning Selvin Young, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he's #3 on the depth chart and Shanahan hasn't been pumping him up any. You might think that's my bias talking, but I could drop Selvin Young today and I'd still feel the exact same way about Hall.I do agree with one thing, though- there is more to a running performance than YPC. Here's what I saw with Hall running the ball today- Andre Hall hitting big holes and going down on first contact. He took exactly what he was given, and nothing more. I apologize if I'm not ready to anoint him as the next Terrell Davis on the basis of one good but entirely uninspiring performance.I'm in 5 fantasy leagues. If I'm too biased to comment on any players that I own, then I'm too biased to comment on pretty much anyone.

Let me get this straight - Hall is a free agent in your dynasty league, but you've decided not to add him because you would rather roster Tatum Bell, Mewelde Moore and Chris Perry?

It's actually worse than that, even. My league has an IR option, so I essentially have an open roster spot thanks to Kenny Irons.Mike Bell's on the street, too. I'm just not in a rush to burn my waiver priority for a player buried deep on the depth chart of a team notorious for constantly adding fresh faces and churning its roster from year to year at that position.

Yes, because lord knows that open roster spot is more valuable to your dynasty team than a RB who could get you 160 production yards and a TD. I've always respected your opinion on Denver, but honestly you seem to be stubbornly rejecting a player here. A rush to the waiver wire is absolutely the shark move when you have an open spot and a productive player, albeit a longshot, is there for the taking.

 

[NHT-SPOILER]

After todays performance, he has to be the starter now doesn't he?

Today's performance? He averaged 3.77 yards per carry. He had a couple of big gainers, but on every single one he hit a big hole and ran for a bunch before he was ever touched. Basically, outside of the long screen pass, all he did all day long was take exactly what was given to him, and nothing more.

No offense, but from the start you have overvalued what Young has done and undervalued the threat of Hall. It's hard not to conclude that you are seeing this through the bias of being a Young dynasty owner. We all know there is more to a running performance than YPC. Have to do better than that especially since he was at 4.0 until some badly blocked carries when CHI knew they were running near the end.

So now I own Selvin Young in one of the many different leagues I participate in, and that totally disqualifies me from making educated decisions on him? It's not like I've been a Denver fan for about 20 years longer than I've been a Young owner or anything. I totally base all of my conclusions on Denver based entirely on who I own and not in the slightest bit on how Mike Shanahan has operated in the past.Hall is currently on the street in that exact same dynasty league. If I had wanted him, I could have him, but I chose not to add him. The reason that I'm not a Hall owner is because I don't think he's anything special, and that has NOTHING to do with me already owning Selvin Young, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he's #3 on the depth chart and Shanahan hasn't been pumping him up any. You might think that's my bias talking, but I could drop Selvin Young today and I'd still feel the exact same way about Hall.

I do agree with one thing, though- there is more to a running performance than YPC. Here's what I saw with Hall running the ball today- Andre Hall hitting big holes and going down on first contact. He took exactly what he was given, and nothing more. I apologize if I'm not ready to anoint him as the next Terrell Davis on the basis of one good but entirely uninspiring performance.

I'm in 5 fantasy leagues. If I'm too biased to comment on any players that I own, then I'm too biased to comment on pretty much anyone.

Couldn't agree more. Hall seemed to be 1-dimensional compared to Henry / Young. He has quickness, but lacks power in the middle. Young is the better bet between hall / young in my opinion after today as long as Young can come back from injury.

Either way, I have all 3 DEN backs, so I just hope that the Goodell makes our lives easy already and makes his decision public so that we don't have to take up a spot anymore or do but knowing he'll be OK. NO RBBC!!! Thats all I care about.

Says the guy who owns Selvin Young in both of his leagues (Check the sig.).Guys, it's OK to admit Hall played pretty well today and deserves to be discussed as part of the Denver RB situation.

Wow, I love how ppl on this mb only read into the things they want to hear . I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier, I have all 3 DEN backs and all I can hope for is no RBBC!!

 

[SSOG]

It's actually worse than that, even. My league has an IR option, so I essentially have an open roster spot thanks to Kenny Irons.

Mike Bell's on the street, too. I'm just not in a rush to burn my waiver priority for a player buried deep on the depth chart of a team notorious for constantly adding fresh faces and churning its roster from year to year at that position.

Yes, because lord knows that open roster spot is more valuable to your dynasty team than a RB who could get you 160 production yards and a TD. I've always respected your opinion on Denver, but honestly you seem to be stubbornly rejecting a player here. A rush to the waiver wire is absolutely the shark move when you have an open spot and a productive player, albeit a longshot, is there for the taking.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7771706

 

[The Dude]

I just finished reviewing the game tape - here's my notes on Hall:

Hall is too small to win head-on collisions or push the pile, but he deflects forward off of contact well, and he's also hard to bring down with arm tackles once he's on the move.
Hall got two first and goal carries, they were stuffed because the OL got no push
Hall has legit elusiveness in the open field and definitely is at his best outside the tackles
Hall is a no nonsense runner - he followed his blockers, ran downhill, and ran the plays as designed with the exception of a few good cutback runs and a few runs where he hesitated and was engulfed by unblocked defenders - he did not dance in the backfield
Hall is small, but compact and more than willing to put his shoulder down and initiate contact
Hall has the legit speed to beat defenders to spots and stretch out the angles they are taking - he does not have home run speed, but he does have another gear
The Broncos ran a true option twice with Cutler and Hall, one resulted in a six yard gain for Cutler when he kept the ball (Hall might have had an even larger gain if he had pitched, he had Archuleta beaten to the edge), the other resulted in Hall's sixteen yard TD. In general the Broncos playcalling did a solid job of getting Hall some touches in space.Hall had a very good game and proved that the Broncos could win with him as the featured back. They called some runs up the gut for Sapp, who is better suited to push the pile (and he did), but this was Hall's game all the way. I wouldn't say Hall decisively showed he was better than Young. There are some things each does better than the other. Young has better hands, a more powerful lower body, better patience and cuts, and is a better third down back. Hall is better in space, a better big play threat, better at getting low and rubbing off of contact, and he's much more durable. The Broncos should be thrilled that they have found two more than adequate backs without spending a draft pick. I honestly think that they should feel fine rolling into 08 with Hall/Young/Sapp and their favorite second day/UDFA back next year - and that's assuming Henry gets suspended, which is not a given.

Alright, again, I have all 3 Den RB's and no vested interest in any assessment of Hall.I felt a little less optimistic about Hall when watching the game - doesn't mean the analysis is wrong, I just saw it a little differently.

We both agree on the telling piece though and that is he didn't look effective between the tackles - IMO to the point of almost being ineffective (I did miss 2-3 carries in the 3rd).

Let's not downplay how important that piece is - there's not many (if any) feature RB's that don't perfrom well between the tackles.

I would feel better about Hall if he was effective between the tackles and less effective outside the tackles. I think you can build on that - you are going to loose a lot of games being ineffective between the tackles.

Now that's all based on one game in bad weather where his ankle was bothering him. IMO, nothing happened yesterday to change the depth chart of Henry-Young-Hall. Hall may have earned a little more PT down the road.

Objective & constructive - go ahead and tear it down, Hall-owners.

 

[BigJim®]

It's actually worse than that, even. My league has an IR option, so I essentially have an open roster spot thanks to Kenny Irons.

Mike Bell's on the street, too. I'm just not in a rush to burn my waiver priority for a player buried deep on the depth chart of a team notorious for constantly adding fresh faces and churning its roster from year to year at that position.

Yes, because lord knows that open roster spot is more valuable to your dynasty team than a RB who could get you 160 production yards and a TD. I've always respected your opinion on Denver, but honestly you seem to be stubbornly rejecting a player here. A rush to the waiver wire is absolutely the shark move when you have an open spot and a productive player, albeit a longshot, is there for the taking.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7771706

Meh, that explanation is a valid consideration but IMHO is dwarfed by a 160 yard/1 TD performance. It's awfully hard to imagine you'll pick up any guy off a FA waiver wire, ever, who would give that sort of production even once. I would think A.Hall is the sort of guy one would reserve that waiver priority to go after; a young player who had a couple productive games and some undetermined future opportunity. I don't claim to be an insider, but it occurs to me guys like this come out of the woodwork when no one in particular thought it would happen [let's be honest, even team personnel evaluators]. I'm by no means comparing A.Hall to Priest Holmes, but if everyone knew Priest Holmes had the capacity to be the player he became, he would not have gone undrafted, and the team that initially had him to evaluate right there in practice everyday wouldn't have chosen to displace him and eventually let him go. I'm sure there wasn't a soul who said "This guy has 25 TDs in him." More probable, his past is littered by coaches/fans who said he does this wrong, or doesn't do that well enough, and he's not a long term solution so the team needs to find a better RB for the future. Call me a skeptic that there are any true authorities on the future out there; I think it all boils down to opportunity and what a player does with it.

I don't expect either of us to remember this, but just for kicks I'd love to hear when you use that waiver priority, and on what player.

 

[benm3218]

It's actually worse than that, even. My league has an IR option, so I essentially have an open roster spot thanks to Kenny Irons.

Mike Bell's on the street, too. I'm just not in a rush to burn my waiver priority for a player buried deep on the depth chart of a team notorious for constantly adding fresh faces and churning its roster from year to year at that position.

Yes, because lord knows that open roster spot is more valuable to your dynasty team than a RB who could get you 160 production yards and a TD. I've always respected your opinion on Denver, but honestly you seem to be stubbornly rejecting a player here. A rush to the waiver wire is absolutely the shark move when you have an open spot and a productive player, albeit a longshot, is there for the taking.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7771706

Meh, that explanation is a valid consideration but IMHO is dwarfed by a 160 yard/1 TD performance. It's awfully hard to imagine you'll pick up any guy off a FA waiver wire, ever, who would give that sort of production even once. I would think A.Hall is the sort of guy one would reserve that waiver priority to go after; a young player who had a couple productive games and some undetermined future opportunity. I don't claim to be an insider, but it occurs to me guys like this come out of the woodwork when no one in particular thought it would happen [let's be honest, even team personnel evaluators]. I'm by no means comparing A.Hall to Priest Holmes, but if everyone knew Priest Holmes had the capacity to be the player he became, he would not have gone undrafted, and the team that initially had him to evaluate right there in practice everyday wouldn't have chosen to displace him and eventually let him go. I'm sure there wasn't a soul who said "This guy has 25 TDs in him." More probable, his past is littered by coaches/fans who said he does this wrong, or doesn't do that well enough, and he's not a long term solution so the team needs to find a better RB for the future. Call me a skeptic that there are any true authorities on the future out there; I think it all boils down to opportunity and what a player does with it.

I don't expect either of us to remember this, but just for kicks I'd love to hear when you use that waiver priority, and on what player.

I would love that too. Just for curiosity sake. Also, for the dude who owns all 3 of them and thinks Hall is not good for all the right reasons... I own Henry and Hall and already traded Young. I have no dog in the fight either other than an honest opinion of what I saw yesterday. Here is the questions I think any savvy Dynasty legue owner should ask: Was yesterday the top of Hall's potential? Was that game in the rain without alot of first team practice reps and with a sprained ankle the best he has? Or with practice reps and no sprain can I see him being better than that?

 

[SSOG]

It's actually worse than that, even. My league has an IR option, so I essentially have an open roster spot thanks to Kenny Irons.

Mike Bell's on the street, too. I'm just not in a rush to burn my waiver priority for a player buried deep on the depth chart of a team notorious for constantly adding fresh faces and churning its roster from year to year at that position.

Yes, because lord knows that open roster spot is more valuable to your dynasty team than a RB who could get you 160 production yards and a TD. I've always respected your opinion on Denver, but honestly you seem to be stubbornly rejecting a player here. A rush to the waiver wire is absolutely the shark move when you have an open spot and a productive player, albeit a longshot, is there for the taking.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7771706

Meh, that explanation is a valid consideration but IMHO is dwarfed by a 160 yard/1 TD performance. It's awfully hard to imagine you'll pick up any guy off a FA waiver wire, ever, who would give that sort of production even once. I would think A.Hall is the sort of guy one would reserve that waiver priority to go after; a young player who had a couple productive games and some undetermined future opportunity. I don't claim to be an insider, but it occurs to me guys like this come out of the woodwork when no one in particular thought it would happen [let's be honest, even team personnel evaluators]. I'm by no means comparing A.Hall to Priest Holmes, but if everyone knew Priest Holmes had the capacity to be the player he became, he would not have gone undrafted, and the team that initially had him to evaluate right there in practice everyday wouldn't have chosen to displace him and eventually let him go. I'm sure there wasn't a soul who said "This guy has 25 TDs in him." More probable, his past is littered by coaches/fans who said he does this wrong, or doesn't do that well enough, and he's not a long term solution so the team needs to find a better RB for the future. Call me a skeptic that there are any true authorities on the future out there; I think it all boils down to opportunity and what a player does with it.

I don't expect either of us to remember this, but just for kicks I'd love to hear when you use that waiver priority, and on what player.

I'm really saving my waiver priority for a player that I honestly feel factors into a team's long-term plans (or at the least has a puncher's chance to do so). It's possible that Hall could become a stud, but he had what was, in my mind, a relatively average performance given all the surrounding circumstances (especially given the system that he's in and the numbers it has historically produced). I wouldn't mind taking a flier on Hall, but with my waiver priority I can be guaranteed someone like Colston or Boldin- two guys who had equally good games (I'd argue better games than Hall's last week) but who factored into the team's long-term plans. Or even a Ryan Grant, Ernest Graham, or Derrick Ward.

 

[munchkin]

I just finished reviewing the game tape - here's my notes on Hall:

Hall is too small to win head-on collisions or push the pile, but he deflects forward off of contact well, and he's also hard to bring down with arm tackles once he's on the move.
Hall got two first and goal carries, they were stuffed because the OL got no push
Hall has legit elusiveness in the open field and definitely is at his best outside the tackles
Hall is a no nonsense runner - he followed his blockers, ran downhill, and ran the plays as designed with the exception of a few good cutback runs and a few runs where he hesitated and was engulfed by unblocked defenders - he did not dance in the backfield
Hall is small, but compact and more than willing to put his shoulder down and initiate contact
Hall has the legit speed to beat defenders to spots and stretch out the angles they are taking - he does not have home run speed, but he does have another gear
The Broncos ran a true option twice with Cutler and Hall, one resulted in a six yard gain for Cutler when he kept the ball (Hall might have had an even larger gain if he had pitched, he had Archuleta beaten to the edge), the other resulted in Hall's sixteen yard TD. In general the Broncos playcalling did a solid job of getting Hall some touches in space.Hall had a very good game and proved that the Broncos could win with him as the featured back. They called some runs up the gut for Sapp, who is better suited to push the pile (and he did), but this was Hall's game all the way. I wouldn't say Hall decisively showed he was better than Young. There are some things each does better than the other. Young has better hands, a more powerful lower body, better patience and cuts, and is a better third down back. Hall is better in space, a better big play threat, better at getting low and rubbing off of contact, and he's much more durable. The Broncos should be thrilled that they have found two more than adequate backs without spending a draft pick. I honestly think that they should feel fine rolling into 08 with Hall/Young/Sapp and their favorite second day/UDFA back next year - and that's assuming Henry gets suspended, which is not a given.

Alright, again, I have all 3 Den RB's and no vested interest in any assessment of Hall.I felt a little less optimistic about Hall when watching the game - doesn't mean the analysis is wrong, I just saw it a little differently.

We both agree on the telling piece though and that is he didn't look effective between the tackles - IMO to the point of almost being ineffective (I did miss 2-3 carries in the 3rd).

Let's not downplay how important that piece is - there's not many (if any) feature RB's that don't perfrom well between the tackles.

I would feel better about Hall if he was effective between the tackles and less effective outside the tackles. I think you can build on that - you are going to loose a lot of games being ineffective between the tackles.

Now that's all based on one game in bad weather where his ankle was bothering him. IMO, nothing happened yesterday to change the depth chart of Henry-Young-Hall. Hall may have earned a little more PT down the road.

Objective & constructive - go ahead and tear it down, Hall-owners.

Madden commented on how the perception of Westy was that he was not effective between the tackles early in his career and look at where he is now. Based on a whopping one professional game we can say that Hall was not effective between the tackles, that is correct. Let's not extrapolate that into a career shortcoming.

 

[RUSF18]

Maybe it's just my fairly novice eyes (especially when it comes to the intricacies of run blocking), but from what I saw watching the game, the vast majority of the runs where Hall was stopped at or behind the LOS seemed to come from the OL not doing its job and the Bears D getting in quick. It's not like Hall was tentative hitting the whole, bouncing around or running with his head down. Again, that's only from one viewing in real-time, so I could be wrong, but I walked away from that game impressed by what Hall could do when the opportunity for yards was there.

 

[BigJim®]

but with my waiver priority I can be guaranteed someone like Colston or Boldin- two guys who had equally good games

Do you mean the next Colston/Boldin? Wow, I'm not calling that impossible, but those guys are 2 out of a couple hundred WRs to be picked up in my dynasty league over the past 5 years. If you have that sort of eye for talent, more power to you. I don't.

 

[packersfan]

SSOG, I have no idea if Hall is going to be a legit starting RB in this league or if yesterday was his one moment in the sun. But I think it's a real stretch to call his performance "relatively average." The Bears' defense isn't all that anymore but Hall had a damn good game for his first start - especially when you consider he played the entire game on a bum ankle.

Again, my thoughts are the depth chart isn't going to change assuming all three RBs are healthy and active (hardly a lock at the present time) but I do think Hall showed more than enough yesterday for Shanahan to feel good about him should he need to call on him again this season.

 

[KoolKat]

I usually steer clear of the out of nowhere RBs the Broncos have each year, passing on Selvin Young and Mike Bell in the past. However, I am impressed with Hall's burst of speed and low center of gravity. I disagree with saying that he cannot break a tackle, because I saw him break several last week including is TD run. He appears to be a more capable runner than Bell, Sapp, and Young in my opinion. Not saying this guy is going to be a future pro bowler, but if you had an open spot and didn't add him, I would regret it now.

 

[cartel]

I just finished reviewing the game tape - here's my notes on Hall:

Hall is too small to win head-on collisions or push the pile, but he deflects forward off of contact well, and he's also hard to bring down with arm tackles once he's on the move.
Hall got two first and goal carries, they were stuffed because the OL got no push
Hall has legit elusiveness in the open field and definitely is at his best outside the tackles
Hall is a no nonsense runner - he followed his blockers, ran downhill, and ran the plays as designed with the exception of a few good cutback runs and a few runs where he hesitated and was engulfed by unblocked defenders - he did not dance in the backfield
Hall is small, but compact and more than willing to put his shoulder down and initiate contact
Hall has the legit speed to beat defenders to spots and stretch out the angles they are taking - he does not have home run speed, but he does have another gear
The Broncos ran a true option twice with Cutler and Hall, one resulted in a six yard gain for Cutler when he kept the ball (Hall might have had an even larger gain if he had pitched, he had Archuleta beaten to the edge), the other resulted in Hall's sixteen yard TD. In general the Broncos playcalling did a solid job of getting Hall some touches in space.Hall had a very good game and proved that the Broncos could win with him as the featured back. They called some runs up the gut for Sapp, who is better suited to push the pile (and he did), but this was Hall's game all the way. I wouldn't say Hall decisively showed he was better than Young. There are some things each does better than the other. Young has better hands, a more powerful lower body, better patience and cuts, and is a better third down back. Hall is better in space, a better big play threat, better at getting low and rubbing off of contact, and he's much more durable. The Broncos should be thrilled that they have found two more than adequate backs without spending a draft pick. I honestly think that they should feel fine rolling into 08 with Hall/Young/Sapp and their favorite second day/UDFA back next year - and that's assuming Henry gets suspended, which is not a given.

Alright, again, I have all 3 Den RB's and no vested interest in any assessment of Hall.I felt a little less optimistic about Hall when watching the game - doesn't mean the analysis is wrong, I just saw it a little differently.

We both agree on the telling piece though and that is he didn't look effective between the tackles - IMO to the point of almost being ineffective (I did miss 2-3 carries in the 3rd).

Let's not downplay how important that piece is - there's not many (if any) feature RB's that don't perfrom well between the tackles.

I would feel better about Hall if he was effective between the tackles and less effective outside the tackles. I think you can build on that - you are going to loose a lot of games being ineffective between the tackles.

Now that's all based on one game in bad weather where his ankle was bothering him. IMO, nothing happened yesterday to change the depth chart of Henry-Young-Hall. Hall may have earned a little more PT down the road.

Objective & constructive - go ahead and tear it down, Hall-owners.

Madden commented on how the perception of Westy was that he was not effective between the tackles early in his career and look at where he is now. Based on a whopping one professional game we can say that Hall was not effective between the tackles, that is correct. Let's not extrapolate that into a career shortcoming.

I do not think R Bush is great between the tackles...and he is not a bad back.

 

[SSOG]

but with my waiver priority I can be guaranteed someone like Colston or Boldin- two guys who had equally good games

Do you mean the next Colston/Boldin? Wow, I'm not calling that impossible, but those guys are 2 out of a couple hundred WRs to be picked up in my dynasty league over the past 5 years. If you have that sort of eye for talent, more power to you. I don't.

A blind man could have spotted Boldin after his first professional game. Colston was another guy who was easy to spot, based entirely on production. Usually the cream rises to the top early in the season. I don't expect anything else to jump out this year, I'm just patiently saving my waiver priority until the beginning of next year for the next crop of rising stars. Maybe I'm being stupid saving my priority for someone who lights my hair on fire, but I'd rather miss out on that constant roster churning if it means not missing out the next time a rookie WR has 200 yards receiving in his first professional game.

SSOG, I have no idea if Hall is going to be a legit starting RB in this league or if yesterday was his one moment in the sun. But I think it's a real stretch to call his performance "relatively average." The Bears' defense isn't all that anymore but Hall had a damn good game for his first start - especially when you consider he played the entire game on a bum ankle.

Again, my thoughts are the depth chart isn't going to change assuming all three RBs are healthy and active (hardly a lock at the present time) but I do think Hall showed more than enough yesterday for Shanahan to feel good about him should he need to call on him again this season.

But it *WAS* relatively average, given the system he was in. Since 2000, a Denver RB has had 20+ carries 60 times (16 Portis, 16 Anderson, 7 Droughns, 6 Terrell Davis, 5 Griffin, 4 Tatum Bell, 3 Henry, and 1 each for Mike Bell, Young, and Hall). Out of those 60 games, only 17 times (28%) has the RB failed to crack 100 yards rushing. That happened 5 times for Terrell Davis (83% of the time), 4 times for Mike Anderson (25% of the time), 3 times for Quentin Griffin (60% of the time), and once for Mike Bell, Andre Hall, Tatum Bell, Reuben Droughns, and Clinton Portis (yes, Portis had 16 20+ carry games, and only failed to hit triple digits once- he was really a spectacular back while he was here). And this is just 20+ carry games- Andre Hall had 26 carries. Only four times since 2000 has an RB had 25+ carries and failed to crack triple digits (Hall this week, Mike Anderson had a 26/85/2 day in his third professional game, Quentin Griffin had a brutal 25/66/0 game with a game-losing fumble against Jacksonville that I would have blocked from memory if I hadn't seen it happen live, and Terrell Davis had a really sad 33/83/0 game where he was clearly a shell of his former self). Given the context of the situation, the amazing history of success in producing solid rushing performances, yes, Andre Hall had a very average game- and that's being kind. If he'd been playing for Cleveland, or Arizona, or Detroit, then 26/98/1 would be very impressive, but in Denver, that's not enough to raise my eyebrows. It's good, but not even very good. Pretty much exactly what we would have gotten from any Bell, Droughns, or Young who started in his place.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

It's actually worse than that, even. My league has an IR option, so I essentially have an open roster spot thanks to Kenny Irons.

Mike Bell's on the street, too. I'm just not in a rush to burn my waiver priority for a player buried deep on the depth chart of a team notorious for constantly adding fresh faces and churning its roster from year to year at that position.

Yes, because lord knows that open roster spot is more valuable to your dynasty team than a RB who could get you 160 production yards and a TD. I've always respected your opinion on Denver, but honestly you seem to be stubbornly rejecting a player here. A rush to the waiver wire is absolutely the shark move when you have an open spot and a productive player, albeit a longshot, is there for the taking.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7771706

Meh, that explanation is a valid consideration but IMHO is dwarfed by a 160 yard/1 TD performance. It's awfully hard to imagine you'll pick up any guy off a FA waiver wire, ever, who would give that sort of production even once. I would think A.Hall is the sort of guy one would reserve that waiver priority to go after; a young player who had a couple productive games and some undetermined future opportunity. I don't claim to be an insider, but it occurs to me guys like this come out of the woodwork when no one in particular thought it would happen [let's be honest, even team personnel evaluators]. I'm by no means comparing A.Hall to Priest Holmes, but if everyone knew Priest Holmes had the capacity to be the player he became, he would not have gone undrafted, and the team that initially had him to evaluate right there in practice everyday wouldn't have chosen to displace him and eventually let him go. I'm sure there wasn't a soul who said "This guy has 25 TDs in him." More probable, his past is littered by coaches/fans who said he does this wrong, or doesn't do that well enough, and he's not a long term solution so the team needs to find a better RB for the future. Call me a skeptic that there are any true authorities on the future out there; I think it all boils down to opportunity and what a player does with it.

I don't expect either of us to remember this, but just for kicks I'd love to hear when you use that waiver priority, and on what player.

I wouldn't mind taking a flier on Hall, but with my waiver priority I can be guaranteed someone like Colston or Boldin- two guys who had equally good games (I'd argue better games than Hall's last week) but who factored into the team's long-term plans. Or even a Ryan Grant, Ernest Graham, or Derrick Ward.

What in the hell are you babbling on about???GB hindsight.

 

[SSOG]

What in the hell are you babbling on about???GB hindsight.

I'm babbling on about using my waiver priority on players I project to be decent. Now, maybe I'm being far to cavalier here, and maybe my projections for Hall are way off base... but if you aren't going to stand behind your projections, then why bother playing the game? Why not just hire a computer to check FBGs every week and run my team for me?I project Andre Hall to be the next last big thing in Denver. Why waste waiver priority on someone I project to be out of the league in 2-3 years when I could save it for someone I project to become a very solid player? Could my projections be wrong? Absolutely, but what's the point of doing them if I'm not going to trust them? Would I hedge my bets on Hall? Sure, if it didn't cost me anything to do so.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

What in the hell are you babbling on about???GB hindsight.

I'm babbling on about using my waiver priority on players I project to be decent. Now, maybe I'm being far to cavalier here, and maybe my projections for Hall are way off base... but if you aren't going to stand behind your projections, then why bother playing the game? Why not just hire a computer to check FBGs every week and run my team for me?I project Andre Hall to be the next last big thing in Denver. Why waste waiver priority on someone I project to be out of the league in 2-3 years when I could save it for someone I project to become a very solid player? Could my projections be wrong? Absolutely, but what's the point of doing them if I'm not going to trust them? Would I hedge my bets on Hall? Sure, if it didn't cost me anything to do so.

I understand you may not be high on Hall & wouldn't fault you for not pay a whole lot to get him. Who knows what his future holds. I'd rather pay for the Denver backup than most 'weekly studs' off the wire. It's not like you can't ever use a waiver again in the future. I think you hit the nail on the head on being far too cavalier (to say the least). For every Boldin, there's a 100+ Brandon Jones/Mark Bradley 'future' types.No one thought Graham is the future in Tampa. (I'm sure you could say NOW he probably will have a solid role. Set in stone he's the long-term future there? Not in my mind). Derrick Ward? The future in NY? Probably not. If he's not healthy soon, he'll likely be replaced in the offseason by Bradshaw or another draftee. Talented? Yes. Very injury prone? Yes.And most leagues you have to compete with 11 other owners for these type players. You'll miss a helluva lot more than you'll hit on players on waivers.

 

[SSOG]

What in the hell are you babbling on about???

GB hindsight.

I'm babbling on about using my waiver priority on players I project to be decent. Now, maybe I'm being far to cavalier here, and maybe my projections for Hall are way off base... but if you aren't going to stand behind your projections, then why bother playing the game? Why not just hire a computer to check FBGs every week and run my team for me?I project Andre Hall to be the next last big thing in Denver. Why waste waiver priority on someone I project to be out of the league in 2-3 years when I could save it for someone I project to become a very solid player? Could my projections be wrong? Absolutely, but what's the point of doing them if I'm not going to trust them? Would I hedge my bets on Hall? Sure, if it didn't cost me anything to do so.

I understand you may not be high on Hall & wouldn't fault you for not pay a whole lot to get him. Who knows what his future holds. I'd rather pay for the Denver backup than most 'weekly studs' off the wire. It's not like you can't ever use a waiver again in the future. I think you hit the nail on the head on being far too cavalier (to say the least). For every Boldin, there's a 100+ Brandon Jones/Mark Bradley 'future' types.No one thought Graham is the future in Tampa. (I'm sure you could say NOW he probably will have a solid role. Set in stone he's the long-term future there? Not in my mind).

Derrick Ward? The future in NY? Probably not. If he's not healthy soon, he'll likely be replaced in the offseason by Bradshaw or another draftee. Talented? Yes. Very injury prone? Yes.

And most leagues you have to compete with 11 other owners for these type players. You'll miss a helluva lot more than you'll hit on players on waivers.

Re the bolded portion: That's just it, though- he's not Denver's backup. He's Denver's 3rd stringer. And Denver has never been kind to dynasty backs in the first place, constantly churning their RB position. Andre Hall is good enough to succeed in Denver, but so is the undrafted free agent they're going to bring in next year, and the year after, and the year after that, too... and I'm not at all convinced that Andre Hall is good enough to beat those guys out for a roster spot.As for the rest of it... as I said, I'm saving my waiver priority for week 1 or week 2 of next season and hoping someone comes on like gangbusters to command my attention. Historically, waiver moves made this late in the season usually don't wind up netting much.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Might just be difference in strategy in dynasty leagues. I compete each week of every year (have no problem taking the Hall/Mo Morris/Graham/K.Watson/other A Peterson types, even if they might not be the long-term future, but can be serviceable RB2's at the min).

 

[The Dude]

SSOG, don't bother defending yourself any further - you're thinking at a higher level than these guys and you'll never get them to that level.

 

[benm3218]

I bet Ryan Grant didn't appear to be the real deal either... I bet he was a risky pickup for someone saving thier waiver claim for the next Boldin...

The problem is, most Boldin type players get drafted in the rookie draft at the beginning of the year. The waiver claim is not a guaranteed ticket to a can't miss stud. That is horrible logic. Because no one can see the future, and while you pass on players that could help you this yr potentially or be trade bait if you really don't like them, others pick up and drop and benefit from those adds. It has already been said that for every waiver claim made, alot don't pan out. I bet you that the guy in your league with one of the last waiver claim order positions is picking up players every week because he has no reason to save his pick. He is getting good players on a weekly basis.

Like I said above, Grant was number 2 on the depth chart and had done NOTHING to show he warranted a pickup. Now, he is the starter there and probably for the next few years at that.

There was no evidence that Grant would be a good pickup... But, he would have been. There IS evidence that Hall is a good pickup. He is a good pickup. Now you have the right to save your waiver picks for however long you want. You can not have whoever you want on your team, its none of our business. BUT, when you purposefuly make a post about how you could have him since you have an open roster slot, but he is so surely not that good, that you don't want him.... Expect people to tell you that you could be making a mistake.

Having the number 1 waiver priority in my experience is not as big of a deal as you think.

Every single year I watch guys save thier coveted number 1 slot in my league. They can't use it since the guy out there just isn't quite good enough... Hello there pretty little #1 waiver pick, I love you. And then I stroke it, and I pet it, and I massage it. Hehe I love it, I love my little #1 waiver pick, you're naughty! And then I take my naughty waiver pick and I go [makes ripping noises as he passes on Andre Hall when he should pick him up] OOOOOOHHH! I killed it! I killed my waiver opportunity! And that's when I blow it. That's when people like us have gotta pick up Andre Hall, SSOG. Am I right?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I bet Ryan Grant didn't appear to be the real deal either... I bet he was a risky pickup for someone saving thier waiver claim for the next Boldin... The problem is, most Boldin type players get drafted in the rookie draft at the beginning of the year. The waiver claim is not a guaranteed ticket to a can't miss stud. That is horrible logic. Because no one can see the future, and while you pass on players that could help you this yr potentially or be trade bait if you really don't like them, others pick up and drop and benefit from those adds. It has already been said that for every waiver claim made, alot don't pan out. I bet you that the guy in your league with one of the last waiver claim order positions is picking up players every week because he has no reason to save his pick. He is getting good players on a weekly basis.Like I said above, Grant was number 2 on the depth chart and had done NOTHING to show he warranted a pickup. Now, he is the starter there and probably for the next few years at that. There was no evidence that Grant would be a good pickup... But, he would have been. There IS evidence that Hall is a good pickup. He is a good pickup. Now you have the right to save your waiver picks for however long you want. You can not have whoever you want on your team, its none of our business. BUT, when you purposefuly make a post about how you could have him since you have an open roster slot, but he is so surely not that good, that you don't want him.... Expect people to tell you that you could be making a mistake. Having the number 1 waiver priority in my experience is not as big of a deal as you think. Every single year I watch guys save thier coveted number 1 slot in my league. They can't use it since the guy out there just isn't quite good enough... Hello there pretty little #1 waiver pick, I love you. And then I stroke it, and I pet it, and I massage it. Hehe I love it, I love my little #1 waiver pick, you're naughty! And then I take my naughty waiver pick and I go [makes ripping noises as he passes on Andre Hall when he should pick him up] OOOOOOHHH! I killed it! I killed my waiver opportunity! And that's when I blow it. That's when people like us have gotta pick up Andre Hall, SSOG. Am I right?

 

[munchkin]

SSOG, don't bother defending yourself any further - you're thinking at a higher level than these guys and you'll never get them to that level.

Everyone has there own reasoning for making roster moves. Debating that reasoning is what this site is about. Will Hall be a Priest Holmes hidden gem or a one game wonder? There are not that many sure things in the NFL. Highly respected GM's get fooled every year. From the information I have gathered on Hall from various sources he appears to be worth a gamble; a player with enough upside in a tenuous situation to garner a dynasty roster spot. If nothing shakes out by the end of training camp next summer then he can be dropped. How has Cedric Benson looked these last couple of years? How about JJ Arrington? Brandon Jackson was a pretty high pick in dynasty rookie drafts. Bottom line is it's a crap shoot, particularly when you factor in injuries and a teams offensive philosophy.

 

[higgins]

Definitely some strangeness in this thread...

 

[munchkin]

but with my waiver priority I can be guaranteed someone like Colston or Boldin- two guys who had equally good games

Do you mean the next Colston/Boldin? Wow, I'm not calling that impossible, but those guys are 2 out of a couple hundred WRs to be picked up in my dynasty league over the past 5 years. If you have that sort of eye for talent, more power to you. I don't.

A blind man could have spotted Boldin after his first professional game. Colston was another guy who was easy to spot, based entirely on production. Usually the cream rises to the top early in the season. I don't expect anything else to jump out this year, I'm just patiently saving my waiver priority until the beginning of next year for the next crop of rising stars. Maybe I'm being stupid saving my priority for someone who lights my hair on fire, but I'd rather miss out on that constant roster churning if it means not missing out the next time a rookie WR has 200 yards receiving in his first professional game.

SSOG, I have no idea if Hall is going to be a legit starting RB in this league or if yesterday was his one moment in the sun. But I think it's a real stretch to call his performance "relatively average." The Bears' defense isn't all that anymore but Hall had a damn good game for his first start - especially when you consider he played the entire game on a bum ankle.

Again, my thoughts are the depth chart isn't going to change assuming all three RBs are healthy and active (hardly a lock at the present time) but I do think Hall showed more than enough yesterday for Shanahan to feel good about him should he need to call on him again this season.

But it *WAS* relatively average, given the system he was in. Since 2000, a Denver RB has had 20+ carries 60 times (16 Portis, 16 Anderson, 7 Droughns, 6 Terrell Davis, 5 Griffin, 4 Tatum Bell, 3 Henry, and 1 each for Mike Bell, Young, and Hall). Out of those 60 games, only 17 times (28%) has the RB failed to crack 100 yards rushing. That happened 5 times for Terrell Davis (83% of the time), 4 times for Mike Anderson (25% of the time), 3 times for Quentin Griffin (60% of the time), and once for Mike Bell, Andre Hall, Tatum Bell, Reuben Droughns, and Clinton Portis (yes, Portis had 16 20+ carry games, and only failed to hit triple digits once- he was really a spectacular back while he was here). And this is just 20+ carry games- Andre Hall had 26 carries. Only four times since 2000 has an RB had 25+ carries and failed to crack triple digits (Hall this week, Mike Anderson had a 26/85/2 day in his third professional game, Quentin Griffin had a brutal 25/66/0 game with a game-losing fumble against Jacksonville that I would have blocked from memory if I hadn't seen it happen live, and Terrell Davis had a really sad 33/83/0 game where he was clearly a shell of his former self). Given the context of the situation, the amazing history of success in producing solid rushing performances, yes, Andre Hall had a very average game- and that's being kind. If he'd been playing for Cleveland, or Arizona, or Detroit, then 26/98/1 would be very impressive, but in Denver, that's not enough to raise my eyebrows. It's good, but not even very good. Pretty much exactly what we would have gotten from any Bell, Droughns, or Young who started in his place.

Of course you have to take into account that this has been one of the worst offensive lines in Denver in the last several years.

 

[The Dude]

SSOG, don't bother defending yourself any further - you're thinking at a higher level than these guys and you'll never get them to that level.

Everyone has there own reasoning for making roster moves. Debating that reasoning is what this site is about. Will Hall be a Priest Holmes hidden gem or a one game wonder? There are not that many sure things in the NFL. Highly respected GM's get fooled every year. From the information I have gathered on Hall from various sources he appears to be worth a gamble; a player with enough upside in a tenuous situation to garner a dynasty roster spot. If nothing shakes out by the end of training camp next summer then he can be dropped.

How has Cedric Benson looked these last couple of years? How about JJ Arrington? Brandon Jackson was a pretty high pick in dynasty rookie drafts. Bottom line is it's a crap shoot, particularly when you factor in injuries and a teams offensive philosophy.

If you mean debating the quality of a player's value I agree - but a lot of people - including yourself - aren't here to debate Hall - they only want to hear how great he is going to be. SSOG stated earlier, he declined to place a waiver bid on Hall and that Hall was available in free agency later in the week - so you're missing the point that everyone in this league apparently decided not to spend a waiver on Hall - but somehow SSOG is wrong in defending his position.There were a ton of people in millions of leagues that didn't put a waiver claim or whatever in on Hall last week - get over it.

 

[Banger]

but with my waiver priority I can be guaranteed someone like Colston or Boldin- two guys who had equally good games

Do you mean the next Colston/Boldin? Wow, I'm not calling that impossible, but those guys are 2 out of a couple hundred WRs to be picked up in my dynasty league over the past 5 years. If you have that sort of eye for talent, more power to you. I don't.

A blind man could have spotted Boldin after his first professional game. Colston was another guy who was easy to spot, based entirely on production. Usually the cream rises to the top early in the season. I don't expect anything else to jump out this year, I'm just patiently saving my waiver priority until the beginning of next year for the next crop of rising stars. Maybe I'm being stupid saving my priority for someone who lights my hair on fire, but I'd rather miss out on that constant roster churning if it means not missing out the next time a rookie WR has 200 yards receiving in his first professional game.

SSOG, I have no idea if Hall is going to be a legit starting RB in this league or if yesterday was his one moment in the sun. But I think it's a real stretch to call his performance "relatively average." The Bears' defense isn't all that anymore but Hall had a damn good game for his first start - especially when you consider he played the entire game on a bum ankle.

Again, my thoughts are the depth chart isn't going to change assuming all three RBs are healthy and active (hardly a lock at the present time) but I do think Hall showed more than enough yesterday for Shanahan to feel good about him should he need to call on him again this season.

But it *WAS* relatively average, given the system he was in. Since 2000, a Denver RB has had 20+ carries 60 times (16 Portis, 16 Anderson, 7 Droughns, 6 Terrell Davis, 5 Griffin, 4 Tatum Bell, 3 Henry, and 1 each for Mike Bell, Young, and Hall). Out of those 60 games, only 17 times (28%) has the RB failed to crack 100 yards rushing. That happened 5 times for Terrell Davis (83% of the time), 4 times for Mike Anderson (25% of the time), 3 times for Quentin Griffin (60% of the time), and once for Mike Bell, Andre Hall, Tatum Bell, Reuben Droughns, and Clinton Portis (yes, Portis had 16 20+ carry games, and only failed to hit triple digits once- he was really a spectacular back while he was here). And this is just 20+ carry games- Andre Hall had 26 carries. Only four times since 2000 has an RB had 25+ carries and failed to crack triple digits (Hall this week, Mike Anderson had a 26/85/2 day in his third professional game, Quentin Griffin had a brutal 25/66/0 game with a game-losing fumble against Jacksonville that I would have blocked from memory if I hadn't seen it happen live, and Terrell Davis had a really sad 33/83/0 game where he was clearly a shell of his former self). Given the context of the situation, the amazing history of success in producing solid rushing performances, yes, Andre Hall had a very average game- and that's being kind. If he'd been playing for Cleveland, or Arizona, or Detroit, then 26/98/1 would be very impressive, but in Denver, that's not enough to raise my eyebrows. It's good, but not even very good. Pretty much exactly what we would have gotten from any Bell, Droughns, or Young who started in his place.

Of course you have to take into account that this has been one of the worst offensive lines in Denver in the last several years.

and of course the larger issue that he ran the whole game on a sprained ankle. Based on his injury alone you can throw out all the fancy stats IMO. Look at what Jamal did the last year and a half with Balt. with a gimpy ankle....

 

[munchkin]

SSOG, don't bother defending yourself any further - you're thinking at a higher level than these guys and you'll never get them to that level.

Everyone has there own reasoning for making roster moves. Debating that reasoning is what this site is about. Will Hall be a Priest Holmes hidden gem or a one game wonder? There are not that many sure things in the NFL. Highly respected GM's get fooled every year. From the information I have gathered on Hall from various sources he appears to be worth a gamble; a player with enough upside in a tenuous situation to garner a dynasty roster spot. If nothing shakes out by the end of training camp next summer then he can be dropped.

How has Cedric Benson looked these last couple of years? How about JJ Arrington? Brandon Jackson was a pretty high pick in dynasty rookie drafts. Bottom line is it's a crap shoot, particularly when you factor in injuries and a teams offensive philosophy.

If you mean debating the quality of a player's value I agree - but a lot of people - including yourself - aren't here to debate Hall - they only want to hear how great he is going to be. SSOG stated earlier, he declined to place a waiver bid on Hall and that Hall was available in free agency later in the week - so you're missing the point that everyone in this league apparently decided not to spend a waiver on Hall - but somehow SSOG is wrong in defending his position.There were a ton of people in millions of leagues that didn't put a waiver claim or whatever in on Hall last week - get over it.

 

[munchkin]

SSOG, don't bother defending yourself any further - you're thinking at a higher level than these guys and you'll never get them to that level.

Everyone has there own reasoning for making roster moves. Debating that reasoning is what this site is about. Will Hall be a Priest Holmes hidden gem or a one game wonder? There are not that many sure things in the NFL. Highly respected GM's get fooled every year. From the information I have gathered on Hall from various sources he appears to be worth a gamble; a player with enough upside in a tenuous situation to garner a dynasty roster spot. If nothing shakes out by the end of training camp next summer then he can be dropped.

How has Cedric Benson looked these last couple of years? How about JJ Arrington? Brandon Jackson was a pretty high pick in dynasty rookie drafts. Bottom line is it's a crap shoot, particularly when you factor in injuries and a teams offensive philosophy.

If you mean debating the quality of a player's value I agree - but a lot of people - including yourself - aren't here to debate Hall - they only want to hear how great he is going to be. SSOG stated earlier, he declined to place a waiver bid on Hall and that Hall was available in free agency later in the week - so you're missing the point that everyone in this league apparently decided not to spend a waiver on Hall - but somehow SSOG is wrong in defending his position.There were a ton of people in millions of leagues that didn't put a waiver claim or whatever in on Hall last week - get over it.

Everyone has there own reasoning for making roster movesWhat is it about the sentence above you don't understand? Is SSOG not included in everyone. I don't see where I excluded his reasoning. I don't think his reasoning is any less, or more, sound than many other who play this foolish game of FF. As a matter of fact I thought he laid it out pretty clearly, but it wasn't other-worldly. If you think my argument is specious that's fine with me.

 

[benm3218]

I think its pretty obvious... The Dude is in love with SSOG.

 

[mozzy84]

I bet Ryan Grant didn't appear to be the real deal either... I bet he was a risky pickup for someone saving thier waiver claim for the next Boldin... The problem is, most Boldin type players get drafted in the rookie draft at the beginning of the year. The waiver claim is not a guaranteed ticket to a can't miss stud. That is horrible logic. Because no one can see the future, and while you pass on players that could help you this yr potentially or be trade bait if you really don't like them, others pick up and drop and benefit from those adds. It has already been said that for every waiver claim made, alot don't pan out. I bet you that the guy in your league with one of the last waiver claim order positions is picking up players every week because he has no reason to save his pick. He is getting good players on a weekly basis.Like I said above, Grant was number 2 on the depth chart and had done NOTHING to show he warranted a pickup. Now, he is the starter there and probably for the next few years at that. There was no evidence that Grant would be a good pickup... But, he would have been. There IS evidence that Hall is a good pickup. He is a good pickup. Now you have the right to save your waiver picks for however long you want. You can not have whoever you want on your team, its none of our business. BUT, when you purposefuly make a post about how you could have him since you have an open roster slot, but he is so surely not that good, that you don't want him.... Expect people to tell you that you could be making a mistake. Having the number 1 waiver priority in my experience is not as big of a deal as you think. Every single year I watch guys save thier coveted number 1 slot in my league. They can't use it since the guy out there just isn't quite good enough... Hello there pretty little #1 waiver pick, I love you. And then I stroke it, and I pet it, and I massage it. Hehe I love it, I love my little #1 waiver pick, you're naughty! And then I take my naughty waiver pick and I go [makes ripping noises as he passes on Andre Hall when he should pick him up] OOOOOOHHH! I killed it! I killed my waiver opportunity! And that's when I blow it. That's when people like us have gotta pick up Andre Hall, SSOG. Am I right?

I MISS FARLEY

 

[SSOG]

I bet Ryan Grant didn't appear to be the real deal either... I bet he was a risky pickup for someone saving thier waiver claim for the next Boldin... The problem is, most Boldin type players get drafted in the rookie draft at the beginning of the year. The waiver claim is not a guaranteed ticket to a can't miss stud. That is horrible logic. Because no one can see the future, and while you pass on players that could help you this yr potentially or be trade bait if you really don't like them, others pick up and drop and benefit from those adds. It has already been said that for every waiver claim made, alot don't pan out. I bet you that the guy in your league with one of the last waiver claim order positions is picking up players every week because he has no reason to save his pick. He is getting good players on a weekly basis.Like I said above, Grant was number 2 on the depth chart and had done NOTHING to show he warranted a pickup. Now, he is the starter there and probably for the next few years at that. There was no evidence that Grant would be a good pickup... But, he would have been. There IS evidence that Hall is a good pickup. He is a good pickup. Now you have the right to save your waiver picks for however long you want. You can not have whoever you want on your team, its none of our business. BUT, when you purposefuly make a post about how you could have him since you have an open roster slot, but he is so surely not that good, that you don't want him.... Expect people to tell you that you could be making a mistake. Having the number 1 waiver priority in my experience is not as big of a deal as you think. Every single year I watch guys save thier coveted number 1 slot in my league. They can't use it since the guy out there just isn't quite good enough... Hello there pretty little #1 waiver pick, I love you. And then I stroke it, and I pet it, and I massage it. Hehe I love it, I love my little #1 waiver pick, you're naughty! And then I take my naughty waiver pick and I go [makes ripping noises as he passes on Andre Hall when he should pick him up] OOOOOOHHH! I killed it! I killed my waiver opportunity! And that's when I blow it. That's when people like us have gotta pick up Andre Hall, SSOG. Am I right?

Ryan Grant is a horrible comparison. I would vastly prefer Ryan Grant over Andre Hall. Why? Well, for one, he's playing tailback for a team with no clear-cut depth chart at the position, which means he at least has a shot at becoming a long-term fixture at the position. And Green Bay doesn't have a history of bringing in at least one new RB every single season.I never said that my waiver priority was a guaranteed ticket to a can't-miss stud, but I'm sure as hell not going to blow it on a player who I think has what is essentially a vanishingly small chance of ever becoming a fantasy factor for more than a week at a time due to injuries, when I could instead save it for a different player who I think has a better than vanishingly small chance of ever becoming a fantasy factor. I mean, I think Barry Sanders is going to be useless, too. I'm not blowing my waiver priority on Barry Sanders. Does this make me stupid? Or, if you want a more realistic comparison... Mike Bell is on the street, too. He has experience in this system, he's produced some good games, and every single tailback ahead of him on the roster is injured. Should I be blowing my waiver priority on Mike Bell?Again, I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong on this matter, and if it didn't cost me anything to do so, I would hedge my bets for certain... but while sticking with my projections might be wrong, going against them would be stupid, and I'd much rather be wrong than stupid.

But it *WAS* relatively average, given the system he was in. Since 2000, a Denver RB has had 20+ carries 60 times (16 Portis, 16 Anderson, 7 Droughns, 6 Terrell Davis, 5 Griffin, 4 Tatum Bell, 3 Henry, and 1 each for Mike Bell, Young, and Hall). Out of those 60 games, only 17 times (28%) has the RB failed to crack 100 yards rushing. That happened 5 times for Terrell Davis (83% of the time), 4 times for Mike Anderson (25% of the time), 3 times for Quentin Griffin (60% of the time), and once for Mike Bell, Andre Hall, Tatum Bell, Reuben Droughns, and Clinton Portis (yes, Portis had 16 20+ carry games, and only failed to hit triple digits once- he was really a spectacular back while he was here). And this is just 20+ carry games- Andre Hall had 26 carries. Only four times since 2000 has an RB had 25+ carries and failed to crack triple digits (Hall this week, Mike Anderson had a 26/85/2 day in his third professional game, Quentin Griffin had a brutal 25/66/0 game with a game-losing fumble against Jacksonville that I would have blocked from memory if I hadn't seen it happen live, and Terrell Davis had a really sad 33/83/0 game where he was clearly a shell of his former self). Given the context of the situation, the amazing history of success in producing solid rushing performances, yes, Andre Hall had a very average game- and that's being kind. If he'd been playing for Cleveland, or Arizona, or Detroit, then 26/98/1 would be very impressive, but in Denver, that's not enough to raise my eyebrows. It's good, but not even very good. Pretty much exactly what we would have gotten from any Bell, Droughns, or Young who started in his place.

Of course you have to take into account that this has been one of the worst offensive lines in Denver in the last several years.

Has it been?Denver's averaging 4.55 yards per attempt this year, which is good for 5th in the league. Here's how many yards per attempt they've been averaging in each of the years from the samples I provided, as well as where that's ranked.2006- 4.41 / 9th2005- 4.68 / 4th2004- 4.37 / 8th2003- 4.84 / 3rd2002- 4.96 / 3rd2001- 3.90 / 19th2000- 4.50 / 6thAverage from 2000 to 2006- 4.52 / 7.4thIn other words, Denver's gaining more yards per rush, on average, this season than they did from 2000 to 2006 (which is when those 20 carry / 100 yard game statistics came from). More recently, if you look at the last 4 seasons, this year's ypc would rank second.

and of course the larger issue that he ran the whole game on a sprained ankle. Based on his injury alone you can throw out all the fancy stats IMO. Look at what Jamal did the last year and a half with Balt. with a gimpy ankle....

Now, the fact that Hall was injured does partially excuse his performance, which is why I said it was average despite the fact that his output was way below Denver's actual historical average output. Of course, the fact that Hall is injured also means that he's not going to be able to take advantage of the fact that everyone else ahead of him on the depth chart is injured, too. Sort of a catch-22. People mention that injury as if it's a positive for Hall's value, but I fail to see it as anything other than a massive negative.

 

[benm3218]

I bet Ryan Grant didn't appear to be the real deal either... I bet he was a risky pickup for someone saving thier waiver claim for the next Boldin... The problem is, most Boldin type players get drafted in the rookie draft at the beginning of the year. The waiver claim is not a guaranteed ticket to a can't miss stud. That is horrible logic. Because no one can see the future, and while you pass on players that could help you this yr potentially or be trade bait if you really don't like them, others pick up and drop and benefit from those adds. It has already been said that for every waiver claim made, alot don't pan out. I bet you that the guy in your league with one of the last waiver claim order positions is picking up players every week because he has no reason to save his pick. He is getting good players on a weekly basis.Like I said above, Grant was number 2 on the depth chart and had done NOTHING to show he warranted a pickup. Now, he is the starter there and probably for the next few years at that. There was no evidence that Grant would be a good pickup... But, he would have been. There IS evidence that Hall is a good pickup. He is a good pickup. Now you have the right to save your waiver picks for however long you want. You can not have whoever you want on your team, its none of our business. BUT, when you purposefuly make a post about how you could have him since you have an open roster slot, but he is so surely not that good, that you don't want him.... Expect people to tell you that you could be making a mistake. Having the number 1 waiver priority in my experience is not as big of a deal as you think. Every single year I watch guys save thier coveted number 1 slot in my league. They can't use it since the guy out there just isn't quite good enough... Hello there pretty little #1 waiver pick, I love you. And then I stroke it, and I pet it, and I massage it. Hehe I love it, I love my little #1 waiver pick, you're naughty! And then I take my naughty waiver pick and I go [makes ripping noises as he passes on Andre Hall when he should pick him up] OOOOOOHHH! I killed it! I killed my waiver opportunity! And that's when I blow it. That's when people like us have gotta pick up Andre Hall, SSOG. Am I right?

Ryan Grant is a horrible comparison. I would vastly prefer Ryan Grant over Andre Hall. Why? Well, for one, he's playing tailback for a team with no clear-cut depth chart at the position, which means he at least has a shot at becoming a long-term fixture at the position. And Green Bay doesn't have a history of bringing in at least one new RB every single season.I never said that my waiver priority was a guaranteed ticket to a can't-miss stud, but I'm sure as hell not going to blow it on a player who I think has what is essentially a vanishingly small chance of ever becoming a fantasy factor for more than a week at a time due to injuries, when I could instead save it for a different player who I think has a better than vanishingly small chance of ever becoming a fantasy factor. I mean, I think Barry Sanders is going to be useless, too. I'm not blowing my waiver priority on Barry Sanders. Does this make me stupid? Or, if you want a more realistic comparison... Mike Bell is on the street, too. He has experience in this system, he's produced some good games, and every single tailback ahead of him on the roster is injured. Should I be blowing my waiver priority on Mike Bell?Again, I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong on this matter, and if it didn't cost me anything to do so, I would hedge my bets for certain... but while sticking with my projections might be wrong, going against them would be stupid, and I'd much rather be wrong than stupid.

But it *WAS* relatively average, given the system he was in. Since 2000, a Denver RB has had 20+ carries 60 times (16 Portis, 16 Anderson, 7 Droughns, 6 Terrell Davis, 5 Griffin, 4 Tatum Bell, 3 Henry, and 1 each for Mike Bell, Young, and Hall). Out of those 60 games, only 17 times (28%) has the RB failed to crack 100 yards rushing. That happened 5 times for Terrell Davis (83% of the time), 4 times for Mike Anderson (25% of the time), 3 times for Quentin Griffin (60% of the time), and once for Mike Bell, Andre Hall, Tatum Bell, Reuben Droughns, and Clinton Portis (yes, Portis had 16 20+ carry games, and only failed to hit triple digits once- he was really a spectacular back while he was here). And this is just 20+ carry games- Andre Hall had 26 carries. Only four times since 2000 has an RB had 25+ carries and failed to crack triple digits (Hall this week, Mike Anderson had a 26/85/2 day in his third professional game, Quentin Griffin had a brutal 25/66/0 game with a game-losing fumble against Jacksonville that I would have blocked from memory if I hadn't seen it happen live, and Terrell Davis had a really sad 33/83/0 game where he was clearly a shell of his former self). Given the context of the situation, the amazing history of success in producing solid rushing performances, yes, Andre Hall had a very average game- and that's being kind. If he'd been playing for Cleveland, or Arizona, or Detroit, then 26/98/1 would be very impressive, but in Denver, that's not enough to raise my eyebrows. It's good, but not even very good. Pretty much exactly what we would have gotten from any Bell, Droughns, or Young who started in his place.

Of course you have to take into account that this has been one of the worst offensive lines in Denver in the last several years.

Has it been?Denver's averaging 4.55 yards per attempt this year, which is good for 5th in the league. Here's how many yards per attempt they've been averaging in each of the years from the samples I provided, as well as where that's ranked.2006- 4.41 / 9th2005- 4.68 / 4th2004- 4.37 / 8th2003- 4.84 / 3rd2002- 4.96 / 3rd2001- 3.90 / 19th2000- 4.50 / 6thAverage from 2000 to 2006- 4.52 / 7.4thIn other words, Denver's gaining more yards per rush, on average, this season than they did from 2000 to 2006 (which is when those 20 carry / 100 yard game statistics came from). More recently, if you look at the last 4 seasons, this year's ypc would rank second.

and of course the larger issue that he ran the whole game on a sprained ankle. Based on his injury alone you can throw out all the fancy stats IMO. Look at what Jamal did the last year and a half with Balt. with a gimpy ankle....

Now, the fact that Hall was injured does partially excuse his performance, which is why I said it was average despite the fact that his output was way below Denver's actual historical average output. Of course, the fact that Hall is injured also means that he's not going to be able to take advantage of the fact that everyone else ahead of him on the depth chart is injured, too. Sort of a catch-22. People mention that injury as if it's a positive for Hall's value, but I fail to see it as anything other than a massive negative.

you did comment on my tommy boy addition... ehh well I thought you might like that.

 

[SSOG]

you did comment on my tommy boy addition... ehh well I thought you might like that.

Never seen it.

 

[Rynomite]

Carries of 3 yards or less - 17 carries netting 2 yards:A.Hall right guard to DEN 13 for no gain (97-M.Anderson).A.Hall left end to CHI 11 for 3 yards (33-C.Tillman).A.Hall left tackle to CHI 5 for -2 yards (20-A.Archuleta).A.Hall right tackle to CHI 33 for no gain (92-H.Hillenmeyer).A.Hall left tackle to DEN 34 for 1 yard (54-B.Urlacher, 55-L.Briggs).A.Hall left end to DEN 36 for 2 yards (54-B.Urlacher). A.Hall left guard to CHI 4 for no gain (99-D.Walker, 93-A.Ogunleye).A.Hall right guard to DEN 29 for 1 yard (93-A.Ogunleye). A.Hall right end to DEN 29 for no gain (93-A.Ogunleye, 33-C.Tillman). A.Hall right tackle to DEN 28 for 1 yard (95-A.Adams).A.Hall right tackle to CHI 5 for -3 yards (55-L.Briggs). A.Hall right end to DEN 14 for 3 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer).A.Hall left tackle to DEN 34 for 2 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer, 54-B.Urlacher). A.Hall right guard to CHI 14 for no gain (95-A.Adams). A.Hall left end to CHI 44 for -8 yards (97-M.Anderson).A.Hall right tackle to DEN 32 for 3 yards (54-B.Urlacher).A.Hall right end to DEN 42 for -1 yards (38-D.Manning).The 8 good carries:A.Hall left end to CHI 14 for 11 yards (95-A.Adams).A.Hall left tackle to CHI 3 for 8 yards (20-A.Archuleta, 38-D.Manning). A.Hall right end for 16 yards, TOUCHDOWNA.Hall left tackle to DEN 29 for 6 yards (54-B.Urlacher, 92-H.Hillenmeyer).A.Hall right guard to DEN 15 for 5 yards (96-A.Brown). A.Hall left guard to DEN 27 for 11 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer, 97-M.Anderson). A.Hall left end to CHI 42 for 16 yards (38-D.Manning).A.Hall left end to CHI 2 for 23 yards (54-B.Urlacher). So 2/3 of the time 3 yards or less, 1/3 for about 12 on avg

Sounds a lot like Willie Parker to me........